Content area
Full text
Date of decision: 13 September 2024
2024-TII-254-ITAT-DEL-INTL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENCH 'D', DELHI
ITA Nos. 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347 & 1348/DEL/2024
Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15,
2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19
AMOL AWASTHI
C/O VINOD KUMAR BINDAL & CO
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SHIV SUSHIL BHAWAN
D-219, VIVEK VIHAR, PHASE-I
NEW DELHI
TAN/PAN NO: AACPA8416E
Vs
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE - I, NEW DELHI
Saktijit Dey, President & M Balaganesh, AM
Date of Hearing: July 03, 2024
Date of Decision: September 13, 2024
Appellant Rep by: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AR Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP
Respondent Rep by: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Income Tax: Sections 69A, 132, 153A, 153C
Keywords: seized document - undisclosed income - pass-through entity - assumption of jurisdiction - incriminating document
THE assessee is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) individual, being a resident of Dubai in United Arab Emirates (UAE). As discussed by the Assessing Officer (AO), a search was conducted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, [DDIT)-Investigation, Unit 7(3) on Sanjay Jain and others. During the search and seizure operation, incriminating evidence in the form of mail and chat communication was found revealing that Shri Pankaj Jain and his brother Shri Sanjay Jain, in connivance with some other persons, namely, Shri Udai Shankar Awasthi, his son Shri Amol Awasthi, Shri Parvinder Singh Gahlaut, his son Shri Vivek Gahlaut, Shri Amrendra Dhari Singh were working with close proximity to Indian Potash Limited (IPL) and Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Organization (IFFCO) and have been influencing the fair price/market price at which fertilizer/fertilizer products are procured by them and other Indian consumers. He observed that various incriminating chats between Shri Udai Shankar Awasthi, Managing Director of IFFCO, Shri Parvinder Singh Gahlaut, Managing Director of IPL and Shri Sanjay Jain showed manipulation of fertilizer prices. Since, the assessee was also covered under the said search and seizure operation, proceedings under Section 153A were initiated against the assessee. In course of such proceedings, the AO also sought information from FT & TR to corroborate the information found/gathered in pursuance of search and seizure operation. However, as observed by the AO, during the pendency of proceedings initiated under Section 153A, he received information from another AO that, another search...