9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 675 only as tuition fee on 19th March, 1967. Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of assessee was apprehended by Customs Preventive Staff soon after she landed at Palam Airport by an IAC Flight No. 181 from Bombay. On examination of her baggage in her presence three packets each containing two bars of foreign marked gold and each weighing 10 tolas were recovered from the black purse being carried on her. On further interrogation she surrendered two similar packets containing 4 bars. And on further personal search by a Lady Inspector of Customs 12 bars of gold were found concealed in her person. The total gold thus recovered was 22 bars of 10 tolas each totalling 220 tolas. All the bars were with foreign markings and the lady could not produce any per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about her departure from Bombay and hence Shri Sanwal Dass had come to receive her on the Airport. The ITO thereafter recorded the statement of the assessee, who stated that he does not know anything about the seizure of 220 tolas of gold from his wife on 19th March, 1967. As regards, the purchase of gold and on 18th March, 1967 i.e. 120 tolas and the statement given by his wife, the assessee claimed that the Customs authorities recorded the statement of Smt. Sumitra Devi under duress and the same fact was intimated to Customs Collector and S.D.M. the next day by telegrams. Thus, in the circumstances the ITO observed that it is apparent that the assessee's statement given by the Lady could not have been under duress for the simple reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed back the same to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. The ITO also held that as a lady has stated that her husband has been indulging in bringing gold on earlier occasions also, the income from that activity also be taken into consideration and the same was estimated by the ITO at Rs. 15,000. Thereby the ITO estimated the total income of the assessee at Rs. 80,185./ Besides the above he also charged interest under s. 139(1) and 217 of the IT Act. 3. In appeal the AAC after considering the pleas of the assessee observed that after going through the records, he did not find much merit in the preliminary objection of the assessee that the notice under s. 148 was not properly served upon him. He held that the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fixture and it was so served by notice server in the presence of the Inspector. Both of them confirmed the service of notice on solemn affirmation before the ITO who then held the service to be valid. The service was made on 16th June, 1973 and the return was filed on 16th July, 1973. The address on the return is the same as the address given in the notice. Against this background, the AAC held that the objection of the assessee is not valid and hence he rejected the same. So far as the addition of Rs. 64,500 and Rs. 15,000 is concerned, the AAC observed that there is no force in the plea of the assessee because the assessee's wife Smt. Sumitra Devi was clearly caught with 22 bars of gold on 19th March, 1967 and she categorically stated bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this plea also. So far as the claim of the assessee that the ITO was wrong in charging penal interest under s. 139(1) and 217, the AAC, held that there is no substance in the contention of the assessee, in view of the amendment to s. 139(8) of the Act by way of Finance Act 1972 which came into effect from 1st April, 1972 and in view of the fact that the assessee failed to file the estimate of advance tax. Hence this appeal by the assessee before us. 4. Heard both the learned counsel; for the assessee Shri C.S. Agarwal and the learned Authorised Representative of the Department Shri M.M. Prasad. In our view, so far as the plea of the assessee that there was no valid service under s. 148 on the assessee, we may observe that the service was le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for that the Dy. Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 4,000 on Smt. Sumitra Devi and 1,000 on Shri Sanwal Dass under s. 112 of the Customs Act, since both of them were very much concerned in carrying, hiding and otherwise dealing in contraband gold which they fully knew was confiscable under s. 111 of the Customs Act. In the orders of both the authorities below, we do not find any reference to the order of the Dy. Collector which is dt. 20th Dec., 1968, and it could be presumed that the same was both before the ITO as well as before the AAC. In this view of the matter, we deem it proper to restore back the matter to the file of the ITO with a direction that he will examine the lady Smt. Sumitra Devi and after giving full opportunity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
