9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts were duly returned and duly assessed. 3. In the course of enquiries in connection with the assessment of M/s M. George Bros. Chitty Fund, where the three assessees are partners, it was found that the consideration paid for the acquisition of this estate was much more than what was shown in the sale deed. In the course of the enquiry, the GTO, Central Circle, Ernakulam came in possession of a rough cash book maintained by the firm, M/s M. George Bros. Chitty Fund, for the period 5th Aug., 1966 to 10th Oct., 1966 and as per this book a sum of Rs. 2.5 lakhs had been drawn by M/s M. George Bros., on 30th Aug., 1966 and Rs. 20,000 on 31st Aug., 1966 which did not find a place in the regular books. Since the estate was purchased on 1st Sept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So the GTO assessed each of them to gift-tax on the gift valued at Rs. 90,000 per assessee. The AAC cancelled it on the reasoning that there is no evidence to show that these assessees gifted anything in their individual capacity. Hence these three departmental appeals. 5. Before us, the three assessees did not contest the finding that the extra consideration was paid for the estate and that such extra consideration came from the concealed income of the firm of M/s M. George Bros. Chitty Fund. Of course, even on the materials brought out in the assessment order the extra amount paid seems to be only Rs. 2,30,000 and not Rs. 2,70,000. The main argument of the assessee before us is that the concealed income is that of the firm and that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid the extra consideration and how much was the contribution of each of the three would have solved the problem. The assessee would have either given an answer or would have avoided to give an answer. In case of such avoidance, the GTO might perhaps be justified in drawing inferences. But those vital, crucial, penetrating and absolutely relevant questions were never put to any of these three assessees. So such a vital and crucial omission as to ask the assessees whether the extra consideration was paid by the firm for the purchase of the estate or by the individuals and how much each of the individuals contributed cannot be cured by resort to inferences. So, in the absence of clear facts about the status in which the gifts were given and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to bring out the relevant materials is the omission to put those vital questions at that crucial stage. Even on 12th Oct., 1975 when Mathew M. Thomas was examined he could have been confronted with his previous statement and questioned as to whether he gifted in his individual capacity and how much was his contribution. Such things having not been done we cannot permit the GTO to go on drawing inferences which according to the assessee are only wild inferences and not justifiable or permissible under any circumstances. We find that this is a case where the GTO could have brought on the relevant facts for an assessment on the individuals. It was possible in the case. That has not been done. So it is possible only to assessee the firm or th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
