9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. The AAC agreed with the ITO. But the Tribunal held that the Department had not brought any material to show that the assessee was owner of the money in question. The Tribunal observed that the evidence only indicated that the assessee had been engaged only for disbursing the money not belonging but belonging to some third parties. So in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and referred the case back to the ITO to make a fresh assessment. But the ITO again made the same type of assessment. The CIT (A) sustained only to the extent of the amount seized. So the assessee appeals for further relief. The Department in cross objections requires restoration of the assessment. 2. The Officers of the Enforcement Direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o indicate the amount to be disbursed and that the assessee was to be paid a commission at the rate of 5 ps. for Rs. 1000 for such disbursement. He further stated that he had a friend by name Gopal at Singapore. That he did not remember letter's full address and that he had send by the said Gopal. An English translation of the statement of the assessee is placed in the paper book. Jamal Mohammed, the brother in law also when questioned that day confirmed in all material particulars what the assessee said. Acting on the information given by the assessee that he had caused to be paid Rs. 49,000 to Angappan of Sarathy and Company, the Officer's immediately proceeded to that place and seized Rs. 43,100 from Sarathy company and questioned Angapp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulars. We may even ignore the corroboration offered by the contemporaneous statement of the brother-in-law. But what, about the recovery from Angappan and his statement about the distribution. That cannot be so easily ignored or brushed aside. One need only peruse the written statement furnished by the Director Enforcement before the Madras High Court in the suit filed by Shri Quureshi, the tenant of the building for declaration of the ownership of the seized amount and which written statement is copiously reproduced in the judgement of the High Court, dismissing the suit, to realise the extent of corroboration offered by the Angappan's statement to the statements and answers given by the assessee when questioned immediately after the seizu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed and cross objection dismissed. The large number of citations made by the assessee as well as the Department are absolutely unnecessary to decide this otherwise very plain and simple question of Act based on elementary principles of application of evidence. 5. We may also add that in the case the ownership is a legitimate conclusion on the facts of the case, the ITO cannot be said to be wrong when he says that the assessee has been found to be the owner of Rs. 6 lakhs. The assessee had admitted possession of Rs. 6 lakhs the previous day. Just because it is not physically search, it cannot be said that part of the amount has to be excluded. The CIT (A) seems to be in error to that extent when he held against that the Department. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
