9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remittances through clandestine means could not beneficiary taken notice of in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Khateeb Mahmood (1). Stating that the IAC, of IT, Tirunelveli Range, in his order, dt. 4th Sept., 1978, passed under s. 144A has directed him to include the above amount, he rejected the assessee's claim and added back the above sum of Rs. 20,150. On appeal, the AAC upheld the order of the ITO. The assessee has come on further appeal before us. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had enough foreign wealth and that the details relating to withdrawal from Ceylon account to the extent of remittances to India were already furnished before the ITO as admitted by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remitted by means other than the authorised channels. The point for consideration is whether for the mere reason that the assessee had not brought the money from Srilanka through the authorised channels, the above addition has to beneficiary necessarily made. The Revenue heavily relied on the ruling of the Madras High Court reported in 109 ITR 408 for the purpose of bringing to tax the above sum. We have gone through the said judgment. The Hon'ble High Court had decided that case on the facts and circumstances of that case. In that case the facts were these: the assessee, who carried on business in Ceylon from 1920 to 1928 left Ceylon for good in 1958 and settled down in India. In 1964 the customs authorities searched the premises belonging ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing and that the finding of the Tribunal was based only on assumptions. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court answered the following question in favour of the Revenue: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal had material to hold and was justified in law in holding that there was no justification for treating the sum of Rs. 1,70,000 as a taxable income of the assessee for asst. yr. 1964-65?". The above decision would not apply to the facts of the instance case. In this case it is not disputed that the assessee had enough cash as foreign wealth and from the circumstances of the case, as pointed out above, it is possible to infer that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
