9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Property by the Commissioner (Appeals) ------------------------------------------------------------------ House No. 196/20 28,000 1,00,000 37,700 Half share in land at Nai Sarak 1,25,000 3,94,950 1,97,475 House at Laxmi Ganj in the name of 15,000 45,000 45,000 Subhas Land in the name wife (6 bigha & 15 Biswa) 1,03,580 1,56,595 1,03,580 Land in the name of Subhas 9,500 49,000 33,000 Land purchased in 71-72 33,950 60,000 50,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ It will be seen from the chart that except in the case of land at Nai Sarak, the differences between the values shown by the assessee and taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of other assets is very marginal particularly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see when the value declared is accepted. As this ground is already covered while disposing of the first common ground, this ground against do not survive from our consideration separately. We also do not know how the average sale price of Rs. 1.70 per sq. ft. should be adopted in respect of unsold land of 44,650 sp. ft. when the value was shown by the assessee at Rs. 1,03,580. This inconsistency remains unreconciled. We therefore decline to interfere. 4. As regards the third ground objecting to the inclusion of Rs. 1,01,000 being the sales price of the part of the land in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977- 78, we would like to reproduce what the Commissioner (Appeals) had said in this regard only to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is therefore no question of any amount representing the seized cash remaining the asset of the assessee. The inclusion of that sum in the assessment of the assessee is not correct even though the assessee has returned this wealth, which was only by mistake. The assessee has clarified this position by means of a letter written to the WTO the 7th March, 1981, which we have extracted in declaring with the appeal filed by the Department in WTA No. 1508 (Del) of 1986. For this reason we hold that the inclusion of this sum is not proper and direct its deletion in toto. But if the Department is able to point out on verification of the facts with reference to the records that any amount of the seized cash remained unadjusted, that amount could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
