LETTER ADDRESSED ON 19-3-2004 TO ACIT -8 , IN CONNECTION TO ASSESSMENT OF RUPMANGLAM INVESTMENT

P S MODY
C/O SHRI S S MODI
40 BMM SOCIETY, PALDI
AHMEDABAD 380 006
19-3-04

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Range 8,
4th Floor, Ajanta Chambers,
Ahmedabad


Respected Sir,


For Kind attention of Shri Sanjay Deshmukh.

Subject: Your notice u S 133(6) dated 5th March 2004 received after
9th march that is on 15th March 04 and My discussions with
you on 16th March 04 as regards to the assessment of
Rupmanglam for assessment year 95-96,96-97,97-98
=================================================================

1. I have already furnished a copy of letter addressed to ACIT-Range 8 on 10-1-03, a copy of notice from Ashok D shah dated 12-12-98,copy of letter addressed to DDIT Unit 1(4) on 11-5-2000 showing list of documents submitted to him, copy of mou between shareholders of Rupmanglam and Dhanyuhsya showing Hemant Kashiparekh and Saurabh soparkar as escrow persons and witnessed by ashish kashiparekh, son of hemant kashiparekh, letter addressed to Mr. Saurabh Soparkar 6-8-2002 , copy of notice served to Global trust bank in December 1999 through advocate J J Patel, copy of form 8 filed in respect of charge creation in respect of dhanyuhsya showing creation on charge on constructed portion too, copy of record of right in 1998, copy of complaint letter against Mr. Soparkar in September 02 made to the Bar council of Gujarat, copy of letter addressed to the vigilance department on 24-7-99.
2. It appears that the letter addressed to your predecessor ACIT, Range 8 on 10-1-03 is missing in your files and it appears that the said letter has been removed for some specific reasons by someone. It also appears that , the predecessor ACIT , Mrs. Smiti Samant dodged to make necessary inquiries referred therein with a view to shield the persons there in and has passed on the burden to the person who would be taking over her charge . From the discussions, I had with you and the contents of the log page bearing signature of H Kashiparekh in febraury , it appears that minute and detailed inquiries have not been made in absence of the above letter with you. On account of copy of the letter furnished by me, I humbly request you to conduct thorough inquiries so that I am not deprived of true justice to the undersigned , even if you are limited by time constraint imposed on you on account of negligence on the part of your predecessor ACIT.

3. In view of the contents of para 2(e), 2(f), 2(g), you are required to take up the issue of amalagamation done by them by seeking endorsement from the High Court . This amalagamation was done only after my submissions recorded by the DDIT, Unit 1(4) on 10-5-2000 pursuant to my letter dated 18-6-99 where I had furnished sensitive information to the department to acquire the immoveable property on account of tax evasion which was later confirmed by the DG’s letter dated September 19, 2000. You have to recover the taxes from them while legally ,ethically and morally you are bound to safeguard my interest in Rupmanglam and Flovin and instead of blindly accepting the amalagamation , you have to ask them to have the amalgamation reversed in view of matter explained to you in depth on 16th March 2004.

4. I am enclosing a copy of acknowledgment of return filed under the signature of Mr. Pankaj S. Mody, director of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd dated 3-3-1997 on behalf of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd (showing address as Rupam, Near Gita Baug Society,Nr. Parimal Rly Crossing, Paldi, Ahmedabad 380 007) for the assessment year 1996-97 showing loss of Rs 5261 and receipt acknowledged by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2) dated 10-3-97 and bearing receipt number 1397. During the discussions on 16th March 2004 with the undersigned , you have already verified the particulars from the records existing with you and even if you remain silent , you acknowledge presence of this document under my signature with you.

5. Eventhough your letter addressed to me has been addressed as gentleman, my presence on 16th March cleared your doubts , when you referred to the acknowledgment copy of return filed for assessment year 96-97 which showed date of receipt as 10-3-97 and acknowledgment receipt number of bearing my signature on 3-3-1997 as director of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd. In absence of any contradictions supported by documentary evidence on receipt of present letter, you have acknowledged my presence as director of the company in 1997 based on acknowledgment copy available in your records.

6. Mr. Hemant Kashiparekh is just a mere auditor of the company and what ever statements he has made or is going to make , they are not binding on me, in view of my position in the company. It is necessary that he is called upon immediately, to furnish detailed replies to the letters written to him in form of affidavit as referred in my letter in January 2003. This is essential so as to examine all the issues in totality and not from the perspective of Mr. Kashiparekh as he is not the owner of the company. In view of his silence, his silence has to be pierced and in case , you choose otherwise, it may affect you at a later stage.

7. In view of my correspondence with the department , and the contents of the letter from Director General of Income tax-Investigation on September 19,2000 and in the interest of true justice and being fair to me , you need to ascertain all the facts on ownership of company, ownership of shares and furnish the same to me as I have natural fundamental right of such information and you as assessing officer cannot deprive me by not providing the same under any pretext whatsoever.

8. In view of my letter dated 10/1/03 , Mr. Kashiparekh is conveyed that as auditor of Rupmanglam Investment Private Ltd, Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd and Span Medicals , he is called upon to adduce all documentary evidence in form of minute book records of directors and shareholders of RIPL and FPPL bearing signature of P Mody that the shares along with stamped transfer deeds have been presented within validity period of two months to the legal board of Directors of Rupmanglam and Flovin and the referred shares are also reflected in Dhanyuhsya Financial balance sheet of 1996 and confirmed by the auditors of Dhanyuhsya , that is M/s Shah and Shah. Associates. Based on such documentary evidence and his certificate , he is called upon to furnish auditor certificate that Span Medicals are the legal owners of Rupmanglam and Flovin immoveable property and the companies in question and he confirms that he is fully satisfied about the compliance. In case , you fail to provide his confirmation along with documentary evidence to the undersigned within a week of this letter, it would confirm that Span Medicals are not legal owners of the property inspite of the orders passed by the high court and it would be your responsibility to protect my interest , right , title in Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd and Flovin Plastics Pvt Ltd.

9. I would also like to draw your attention , that in case mody family members have resigned from the board of directors of Rupmanglam Investment Pvt Ltd on 17-9-1996, then you have to collect wealth tax on the assets of RIPL,FPPL and Dhanyuhsya taking into consideration charge created on 19% share in the property for Rs 12.5 crores and owned by Dhanyushya. Such wealth tax is applicable for every year. It is also interesting to note that they have not obtained Income tax clearance certificate from the assessing officer for creation of charge which is deliberate especially when the funds have not been used by them but by Core Health Care and this is done in connivance of Global Trust Bank. In absence of incometax clearance certificate and huge wealth tax liability as per the provisons of income tax act , you are required to attach the property.

10. I would like to draw your attention that the permission under provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income tax act has not been taken by them especially when the constructed portion exclusively belonging to Rupmanglam has been shown by Dhanyuhysa by way of Form 8 filed with ROC and also on account of Rupmanglam and Flovin being shown as subsidiary of Dhanyuhsya in their audited balance sheet 1998. For such transfers, you are required to charge capital gains tax on the entire assets of Rupmanglam and Flovin transferred to Dhanyushya and by attaching the entire bunglow for the moment.

11. As the escrows were holding the share certificates and transfer deeds and handed over by them without written consent , it is necessary to charge them for capital gains tax and also attach all their personal assets.

12. As your predecessor ACIT has failed to record the statement and collect all documentary evidences in view of my previous letter dated 10th January 2003 and has failed to attach and acquire the property , I defer my additional observations in the matter for time being.

13. I sincerely hope that , you look into the matter in the broader interest of revenue without extending favour to Dhanyuhsya , Handas, Core Health Care, Kashiparekhs, jalundhwala, ameet desai, Global Trust bank, Soparkars and the auditors M/s Shah and Shah. This is challenging task for you. But so also is going to be the recognition from the Finance Ministry for catching hold of great bank robbers and their associates.


Yours sincerely,

Pankaj S. Mody