9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts A and B) purporting to be under s. 36 of the Act, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the agricultural income derived from the lands standing in the names of his four sons should not be included in his income for the aforesaid assessment years as escaped income with penalties thereon, under s. 22 of the Act. In answer to those notices, the petitioner filed objections, inter alia, contending that the properties had been separately purchased by his sons in the year 1962-63 and there was no income which escaped assessment so as to reopen previous assessments completed under the Act. But, the AITO by two separate but identical orders made on November 19, 1977 (Exhibits C and D), overruled the objection of the petitioner, broug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee that the lands are purchased in his minor sons' names so that he can escape tax liability. There can be no other possibility except that he himself providing the money and also helping his minor sons to possess demesne. After all who will not be interested in getting their offsprings' future secured and at the same time hoodwink the Government. Investigation further revealed that some of the demesne which was in the name of the assessee has been transferred to his sons' names. E.g. Sy. No. 99/2, 100/1 and 99/1, which were in the name of the assessee, have been transferred to Sri P. C. Kushalappa, one of his sons. Hence, it is as clear as daylight that the assessee had done all these things, i.e., transfer and purchase of property in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be quashed. Even otherwise, every one of the reasons given by the AITO to hold that the income derived from the lands standing in the names of the soils should be included in the income of the petitioner are manifestly illegal. Section 36 of the Act that was invoked by the AITO was wholly inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. A person is undoubtedly entitled to adjust his affairs and reduce his tax liability which cannot be called as hoodwinking the Government, as expressed by the AITO. In this view also, the proceedings initiated by the AITO, the orders made thereon and the demand notices issued thereto, which are manifestly illegal, are liable to be quashed. In the light of my above discussion, I quash the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
