Case Law Details
CIT Vs Rakesh Ramani (Bombay High Court)
In the present case, the entire grievance of the appellant that the impugned order is perverse stands nullified by the fact that the first ground of appeal taken by the appellant is that “it is doubtful whether the jewellery belongs to assessee or assessee’s employer”. Thus, even the Revenue is not certain about the ownership of the seized jewellery. Besides, the entire basis of the Revenue’s case is the statement made on the date of the seizure. The voluminous evidence filed by the respondent during the course of the assessment proceedings has been completely ignored on the ground that the same was not produced when the seizure was made. There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings. Besides, the reference to the newspaper report in the impugned order was not the basis of the decision, it was referred to as it corroborated the respondent’s claim that documents given to the Police at the time of seizure of the jewellery indicated that they belonged to his employer in Mumbai. However, the basis of the decision was the evidence led by the respondent during the assessment proceedings which established that the jewellery belonged to his employer M/s. Pravin Jewellers, Mumbai. Therefore, the view taken by the two Authorities namely the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is a possible view on the facts as existing.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 31st October, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appeal relates to assessment for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 16th July, 1999.
2. The High Court Website indicated that this appeal has been admitted. However, on examination, the Registry found that the record does not contain the order suppossed to have been passed by this Court on admission. Therefore, this appeal was put on board for directions to obtain from the parties copy of the order, if any, which was passed by this Court at the stage of admission. However, both the revenue as well as the assessee are not able to assist us as they do not have a copy of any order passed by this Court in respect of admission of this appeal. Nor are they able to categorically state that this appeal was heard for admission and that an order was passed on admission. It was in the above circumstances that we kept this appeal on board or consideration for admission.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
