9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2,27,900 and liable for imposition of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plea of the assessee was that no such addition was made in the assessment order and as such, no penalty can be levied under ss. 271D and 271E of the Act. 3. During the course of search, a Rukka was found which showed that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 in cash from Banarsi Lal Mittal at the interest rate of 1.5 per cent on 29th July, 1996. This Rukka was duly signed by the assessee and written on the letter pad of the assessee. The AO concluded that by the Rukka, the cash receipt of loan is proved. A statement of the assessee was recorded by the AO during the course of assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he had requested Shri Anand Prakash Gupta to arrange for Rs. 2 lakhs on 29th July, 1996. He further stated in the affidavit that in his presence only, one Rukka on the letter pad of the assessee was signed and sent to Shri Banarsidass Mittal. In the evening, when this agreement did not materialise in the presence of this Shri Sahibram, the assessee informed Shri Anand Prakash Gupta that he no longer required the money in question. It has been submitted by the learned AAR that the statement of the assessee, or anybody for that matter, has to be read in toto and not in piecemeal and since in this case search was conducted in some other persons case, namely, Shri Banarsidass Mittal and paper was found and same was duly explained by assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination there were no materials to justify the assessment of Rs. 30,000 from out of the sum of Rs. 61,000 for income-tax and excess profits and business profits tax purposes, representing the value of the high denomination notes which were encashed on 18th Jan., 1946." 6. It is true that the Department has not taken any pains to summon these persons or ask the assessee to produce these persons for making statements, etc., although the affidavits were placed before him which were duly executed by these two persons. It is also true that the assessee had made statement that Rukka was signed and executed by him for taking loan deposit from Shri Ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee and why he did believe a part of the same which suited him. The Department also did not care to give reasons for believing the affidavit. 8. The assessee on the other hand, has clearly stated that the Rukka was given for a particular purpose and money was taken and has given the reasons for the same. If the Department did not believe or did not want to believe, it was dutybound to controvert the same by any other material on record and by subjecting these persons to scrutiny by way of cross-examination, etc. It was brought to our notice that the said Shri Banarsidass Mittal had declared that amount in his income and had got settlement before Settlement Commission. The totality of these circumstances, speak in favour of the assessee and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
