9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e GT Act. 3. The assessee appealed and contended that the return was filed only on the advice of the ITO who refused to accept that the amount of Rs. 50,000 was given by the assessee to his son, M.Y. Mohd. Thambi as a loan. The assessee also pointed out that this claim had been made in the reply dt. 30th Jan., 1984 filed before the GTO and which had been omitted to be considered. The AAC referred this representation to the GTO for comments. The GTO s comments given by his letter dt. 27th April, 1987 was as follows: "(i) The Gift-tax proceedings were initiated as per the ITO s Order dt. 31st March, 1981 in the wealth-tax miscellaneous records in 1976-77 for issue of Gift-tax notice on the amounts of gift of Rs. 50,000 to the assessee s s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, I am a citizen of Singapore, residing more or less permanently at Singapore. As there is no proper person here in India to help I had to attend my taxation work when I used to come to India. The assessee also filed a copy of the account maintained by the assessee with Haji S.M. Yusuff Co. in which he was a partner where the entry with reference to the sum of Rs. 50,000 carries a narration, which is in Tamil, to the effect that a sum of Rs. 50,000 received by cheque on Indian Overseas Bank on 25th April, 1975 from the assessee by the firm is transferred to M.Y. Mohd. Thambi loan account. It was submitted that the assessee had an honest belief that the transfer itself did not amount to a gift and hence there was no conscious del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misplaced in the GTO s office. However, whether the reply was received by the GTO or not is not very material to the vital issue in this case. 7. In any event the same plea had been made before the AAC, i.e., that he was advised by the ITO to file the return. Significantly the GTO had not denied this particular claim of the assessee. All that is stated is that the return was filed in response to the gift-tax proceedings stated by issue of a notice under s. 16(1) on 15th June, 1981. The further statement of the GTO that the proceedings were initiated under s. 16(1) because of the order of the ITO is also significant. This actually corroborates the claim of the assessee that the gift-tax return was filed only at the insistence of the ITO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs Mests with the assessee on whom it is imposed by law, officers should-- (a) draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to which they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or other; (b) freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the procedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs." (Circular No. 14(XL 35) of 1955 dt. 11th April, 1955)." In the face of these instructions, it is unfortunate that the GTO should not only require the assessee to file a return showing what is apparently a loan as a gift, but on top of it, initiate proceedings for imposition of penalty, for the delay in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
