9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1965-66. The ITO at the time of making the original assessments added to the cost of construction admitted by the appellant Rs. 5000 for asst. yr. 1964 65 and Rs. 12,000 for asst. yr. 19650-66. A raid in the premises of the appellant's co brother revealed that he had paid on money while purchasing a building at 26, Sembudoss St. Madras. Since the appellant was managing the affairs of his co brother, the ITO concluded that the appellant must have also paid similar on money for the purchase of the property at 1-28 and 2-28 Maracair Labbai St., Madras. In the valuation report filed for purposes of wealth tax assessment the appellants valuer estimated the market value of the property at Rs. 95,000. The ITO came to the conclusion that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing payment of on money by the appellant's co-brother when he purchased a building at 26, Sembudoss St., Madras; and (b) In the valuation report filed by the appellant in the subsequent year for purposes of wealth tax assessment, the market value of the property was shown at Rs. 95,000. 6. `Taking ground (a), the payment of co money by the appellant's co-brother has nothing to do with the cost of construction of the property purchased by the appellant. Taking ground (b), the approved valuer has estimated the market value of the property for purposes of wealth tax assessment for the subsequent assessment year and this again has no bearing or relevance for the cost of construction incurred by the appellant for the earlier years. From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich he came to the conclusion that his earlier decision was erroneous. When the appellant disclosed all primary facts material for drawing certain inference therefrom it is not open to the ITO on receiving some information subsequently to draw another inference adverse to the appellant on the very same facts and invoke action under s. 147(a). Such an action on the part of the ITO amounts to change of opinion and it cannot vest the ITO with the jurisdiction to act under s. 147(a). So far as s.147(a) is concerned, the only obligation on the part of the appellant is to place all the primary facts before the ITO and it is for the ITO to draw necessary inference on the facts placed before him. On the materials placed before the ITO at the time o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
