9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Judicial Indiscipline 2. High Court's Interference 3. Gifts and Affidavits 4. Income 5. Onus of Proof 6. Stock Variation 7. Lack of Opportunity Detailed Analysis: I. Judicial Indiscipline: The petitioner argued that the AO did not follow the CIT(A)'s directions to examine foreign donors, which amounted to judicial indiscipline. The court cited several judgments emphasizing the importance of following higher authorities' orders. However, it concluded that the AO complied with the spirit of the CIT(A)'s directions by examining the affidavits in detail, despite the practical impossibility of examining all foreign donors. The court rejected the claim of judicial indiscipline, noting that the AO's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. II. High Court's Interference: The court acknowledged that its supervisory power under Article 226 of the Constitution is to check illegality, arbitrariness, and perversity, but it will not lightly disturb concurrent factual findings. The court found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decisions as they were based on proper appreciation of material facts. III. Gifts and Affidavits: The court examined various judgments on the nature of gifts and affidavits. It concluded that the donations received by the petitioner were not personal gifts but were linked to his vocation as the head of the Ashram. The court found that the affidavits provided by the foreign donors lacked proper notarization and authentication. The court held that the donations were received by the petitioner in his individual capacity and were taxable as income. IV. Income: The court referred to several authorities to show that the term "income" should be given its widest connotation. It held that the amounts received by the petitioner constituted income as they were profits and gains arising out of his vocation, profession, or business. The court confirmed the concurrent finding that the amounts received by the petitioner were taxable income. V. Onus of Proof: The court emphasized that the burden of proving the source or the category under which the receipts should be classified lies on the assessee. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory proof that the receipts were exempt from tax. The court held that the petitioner's explanation did not meet the "satisfactory explanation" test. VI. Stock Variation: The petitioner argued that there were discrepancies between the income referred to in the show-cause notice and the assessment order. The court found no such discrepancies, noting that the figures in the questionnaire tallied with those in the assessment order. The court rejected this ground, stating that the petitioner's claim was incorrect. VII. Lack of Opportunity: The petitioner contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. The court found that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to submit his particulars. The court noted that the assessment orders were passed only after granting multiple adjournments and opportunities to the petitioner. Therefore, this ground was also rejected. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that: 1. The AO complied with the CIT(A)'s directions in spirit. 2. The release deeds were not duly stamped or registered and could not be relied upon. 3. The trust deed indicated that the trust owned no property, so the income could not be assessed in the hands of the trust. 4. The donations were received by the petitioner in his individual capacity and constituted income. 5. The petitioner's own affidavit and responses indicated that the donations were linked to his spiritual activities, making them taxable. 6. There was no variation between the questionnaire and the assessment orders. 7. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case. The court dismissed the writ petitions and closed the connected writ petition miscellaneous petitions.
|
