9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... securities. The assessment years involved in this case are 1981-82 to 1985-86. The assessments in all these years are completed under section 143(3) of the Act. On a scrutiny of the assessment records for these years the Commissioner of Income-tax has taken the view that the assessment orders in these years of the Income-tax Officer are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the following grounds: "(i) The price of the leasehold land was found to be of the order of Rs.24 lakhs. (ii) The acquisition of the leasehold right over 21 cottahs of land for a period of 75 years against the consideration of a mere deposit of Rs.1 lakh. (iii) While the cost of construction of building was computed at Rs.100 per sft. The seized records indicated a much higher cost of construction as indicated therein, in the sale of premises. (iv) The receipts of on-money involved. (v) The proceeds on the demolition of the old building not estimated correctly. (vi) The crediting of the personal accounts of the partners on revaluation of the leasehold property to the extent of Rs.74,12,700 without a corresponding reflection in the wealth-tax returns of the respective partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed? (iii) while the cost of construction of building was computed at Rs.100 per sq. ft. The seized records indicated a much higher cost of construction as indicated therein, in the sale of premises; (iv) the receipts of on money involved; (v) the proceeds on the demolition of the old building; (vi) the crediting of the personal accounts of the partners on revaluation of the leasehold property to the extent of Rs.74,12,700 without a corresponding reflection in the wealth-tax returns of the respective partners; and (vii) Non-verification of the loans alleged to have been received. In appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer had made necessary enquiries and assessment proceedings were monitored by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Vigilance), Calcutta. All directions given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the necessary enquiries which were complied with, the allegation of the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the on money on sale of the property as well as the amount of Rs.22,84,168 stated to have been paid by the assessee for the plot of land is baseless. Loans were genuineness of the cash credits were examined and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and. It is not relevant to t he assessment years under consideration. The next issue relates to alleged receipt of on-money by the assessee against the sale of ownership spaces. For this purpose, the Commissioner of Income-tax relied on page 3 and A-12, page 16 of the seized records and SS-3.' The Departmental Representative had supplied us only with a copy of SS-3 at page 18 of his paper books. He has not supplied us with copies of other papers, viz., A-12, pages 3 and 16. He had supplied copies of annexure A', 'annexure B' and 'annexure C' at pages 26 to 28 of his paper book, wherein the figures of Rs.17,16,244.05, Rs.7,20,000 and Rs.8,30,000 were mentioned. Even the Income-tax Officer in his letter dated August 23, 1985, mentioned these figures. Therein he says that a typed statement was recovered at the office of Mr. Jaggi and according to it, the assessee received on-money of Rs.17,16,244. This statement on which reliance is placed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was not recovered from the assessee. It does not certain any indication as to who received and on whose behalf the amounts of Rs.2,98,710 in cheques and Rs.17,35,095 in cash. The Commissioner of Income-tax might ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sq. ft. was reasonable or viable. He has not given any reason as to why he is giving such a direction." Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the submissions and the facts referred to above. It cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not made proper investigation for completing the assessments. It is true that all assessments are made on September 27, 1985, the return of income for the assessment year 1981-82 was filed on June 25, and assessment proceedings commenced on August 6, 1982. Several hearings took place in the years 1982-84 and 1985. The relevant order sheets were filed by the Department before the Tribunal. The Income-tax Officer has made enquiries at the instance and under direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Calcutta. In these cases even the report was called for by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation), Calcutta, and the report was sent through the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Special Range-VI, Calcutta, on June 14,1985. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Investigation) in his letter dated August 16, 1985, raised certain points, which were to be enquired into, and thereafter the case was to be discussed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction, which is fully supported by the vouchers when the expenditure was fully supported by the vouchers what more investigation is required specially in this case when the assessment proceedings were monitored by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Vigilance), Calcutta. For sale price of new constructions the Commissioner of Income-tax has doubted that on-money has been paid to the assessee. He placed his doubt on seized paper marked BM-1, A-12 and HS-3. According to him, on-money received by the assessee from these different parties for sale of 12,276 sft. amounted to Rs.17,16,244 and according to the Commissioner of Income-tax the market price of the property was Rs.350 per sft. The Tribunal found that the seized paper referred to by him was not recovered from the assessee and on the basis of that paper and figure he computed the figure of Rs.1,02,45,000 as on-money received by the assessee. This paper BM-1 did not contain any name of the person or firm or company or the price of property or building to which it related and that paper was not signed also by any one. The Tribunal further found that in view of the aforesaid facts the on-money theory of the Commissioner of Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
