9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are conveniently dealt with together. 2. The assessee is a landlord with a holding of about 35 acres. He had made investments to the extent of Rs. 30,000 during the year and sought to explain the investments with reference to the opening cash of Rs. 7,373 and the balance out of the cash receipts available during the year. The ITO found that there was no proof of opening cash balance. He therefore added Rs. 7,000 as attributable to unexplained investment, besides accepting the property income at Rs. 1,990, taking up the assessee's income to Rs. 8,990. Subsequently, the Custom Officer seized a car No. MSV 8307 with gold valued at Rs. 9 lakhs on 3rd March, 1967. There were three persons in the car, but all of them denied connection with thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es consistent with his stand that they did not belong to him. It was also claimed that it was not established that the car was acquired during the year. As for the estimate of Rs. 30,000 as income, he claimed that there is no material for holding that the assessee was indulging in transport of smuggled goods. Even the only instance alleged is not established. It was also claimed that the Customs authorities could not bring home the assessee's association in any illegal activity in a Court of Law. It was therefore argued that there was no case for reassessment on merits also. For the same reasons, it was contended, the penalty also deserves to be deleted. If, for any reason, any part of the addition is upheld, it was contended that such addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised at this state of second appeal. As for merits, we find that it has been clearly established that the assessee had acquired the car MSV 8307. The ownership was admitted at one stage. Even otherwise, the materials on record support inference of the ITO. We also find that the application for transfer of registration was made on 17th April, 1966 which falls within the accounting year. If the car was purchased in an earlier year, it was for the assessee to have established such a fact. No such attempt was made at any stage. It is for the assessee to explain the source of this investment. It was generally stated that the assessee was the owner of 35 acres of land from which there was considerable agricultural income. We, however, find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gling activities as business. There is a high degree of suspicion, but suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Even assuming that the assessee was indulging in smuggling as business, we find that there are two separate additions of Rs. 7,000 already made in the original assessment and Rs. 16,500 confirmed by us in the present order. It is also a fact that the car which was purchased for Rs. 16,500 was lost in the same year. If the assessee was indulging in smuggling business the loss of the car would have to be allowed as an expenditure for that business. Considering all these circumstances, we feel that the addition of Rs. 23,500 (Rs. 7,000 + Rs. 16,500) on investment basis can be considered to be the income from smugg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
