9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by the Revenue in the house, locker of the assessee in a bank and the business premises some time in September, 1967, the Revenue found the following assets :-- Rs. Cash 5,122 Foreign currency 56,606 Gold sovereigns 40,803 Investments in residence 80,000 The assessee by way of an explanation for the source of the assets submitted that his wife had received gifts of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 1,50,000, respectively, from her mother-in-law and her father. Out of these gifts, the aforesaid assets were acquired and investments made. It was further stated that the said gifts were lying in cash with the assessee's wife and that she had shown the same in her wealth-tax returns right from the assessment year 1963-64. But this explanation was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer in the proceedings under section 132(5) as well as by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its order under section 132(12) of the Act. The treatment of the aforesaid items as the assessee's income from other sources in the order under section 132(5) was affirmed by the Board in its order under section 132(12). The Income-tax Officer, therefore, followed the said decision in completing the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to his wife. However much the assessee's learned representative might assert before us that in these there is no discrepancy whatever, we have no doubt in our minds that the versions are inconsistent with one another. Truth indeed cannot falter thus. It was argued that the statement under section 132(4) during the search was given at a time when the assessee was under much mental strain and that we should not set much store by it. But then in his subsequent statements, the assessee himself had no case that in making the earlier statement he was under any pressure. Also no such excuse can, be carved out at any rate as regards the petition later submitted to the Board or the statement made at the time of the regular assessment proceedings that followed. The assessee's learned representative would then very much rely on the wealth-tax returns filed by the assessee for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1967-68 as proof positive that, even prior to the previous year relevant to this assessment year, the assessee had in his hands this amount of Rs. 1,90,000 as funds of his wife. Those returns were alleged to have been filed as under : 1963-64 ... on 18-5-1966 1964-65 ... on 8-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen no case that he made use of, for the purpose, the funds of his wife. That appears to us another clinching circumstance clearly pointing out that the wealth-tax returns had not been filed even by then. To add to this is the fact borne by the Board's order under section 132(12) that before it, seeing no way to explain, the assessee conceded to the inclusion of the value of the sovereigns found with him, and the amount of the investment made on the house as his undisclosed income of the year. That again shows that he had then no case of his having had the money in the earlier years, as shown in the wealth-tax returns. We have no doubt, in our mind, therefore, that these wealth-tax returns had not come into existence even at the time the Board passed its order on August 25, 1970. It is conceded that none of the returns bore any inward number or the initials of either the Wealth-tax Officer or even the receiving clerk. We are certainly not prepared to believe that such defects in all of them is purely accidental. Taking all these things into consideration, we concur with the lower authorities that the wealth-tax returns relied on by the assessee are only manipulations on which no tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax returns relied upon by the assessee to show that the items of assets were disclosed items were not in existence even at the time when the Board passed its order is perverse. It is further stressed that the Wealth tax Officer completed the assessment of net wealth for the said assessment years 1963-64 to 1966-67 on the basis of the wealth-tax returns in question disclosing the wife's assets worth Rs, 1,90,000. The assessee also preferred appeals against the said orders of assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer raising therein the contention that the said sum of Rs. 1,90,000 could not be assessed in his hands. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the orders of assessment. In the fresh assessment made by the Wealth tax Officer, the said sum of Rs. 1,90,000 was again included as part of the net wealth of the assessee. Further appeals were filed challenging such inclusion and the appeals were pending before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner till the date of hearing of the instant appeal by the Tribunal. The learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the assessment of the sum of Rs. 1,90,000 as part of the net wealth of the assessee is direct acceptance by the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the investment and dealings with his financial resources. The assessee's claim that the substantial sum of Rs. 1,90,000 remained idle since the fifties until the date of search in September, 1967, is completely out of joint with the assessee's general course of conduct. As a matter of fact, even the assessee's wife to whom the ownership of the assets is attributed is a person very much conversant with and interested in making investments. The ordinary course of conduct of a person who shows sufficient investment-awareness generally in his financial affairs does not admit of the plea which the assessee has sought to take in the case. Their antecedent conduct shows that neither the assessee nor his wife had any freak tendency of hugging cash. They have the natural impulse of an " economic man", an average person who acts towards economic self-interest amidst normal human propensities. The assessee has founded his entire case on the basis of the wealth-tax returns as earlier dealt with by us. The facts of the case create such preponderance of probability as clearly indicated by the falsity of the dates of filing of the returns. All the returns merely bear a stamp mark but do not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
