9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hushan Bhandar, were raided and searched by the Income-tax Department and jewellery and ornaments worth Rs. 1,00,600 were seized. An order under section 132(5) of the Act was passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Gwalior. The applicant was then served with an assessment order for the year 1986-87. The applicant filed a written reply before the Assessing Officer taking a plea that the jewellery and ornaments seized were the assets of the ancestral business of the applicant's father. So far as the investment for purchase of one scooter in the assessment year in question was concerned, the stand taken was that he was assessed for the same in the previous year 1985-86. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the plea taken by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act, the Assessing Officer has first to record a finding that the alleged investments were made in the financial year preceding the assessment year and those were not recorded in the books of account of the assessee. It is argued that in the absence of the above finding, section 69 of the Act could not be resorted to, to treat the investments as income of the assessee for the financial year in question. Therefore, the question of law does arise. With regard to the scooter investment, it was argued that the same having been already assessed in the year 1985-86, it could not have been reassessed for the financial year 1986-87. Shri R. D. Jain, standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, in reply, took us through the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate and consideration of purchases were furnished. The investment of one scooter was, therefore, taxed in the hands of the assessee in the relevant year. The above circumstances taken into account by the Assessing Officers have been duly considered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in its appellate order passed in the case. The plea now sought to be urged in support of this application for reference that the jewellery and ornaments seized were assets belonging to the ancestral business of the family was never pressed before the tax authorities and the plea was also not substantiated by any evidence. So far as the legal contention advanced that there should be a finding that the investments had been made in the previous financial year a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
