9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3,60,773 which was spread over these years by an order passed under s. 271(4A) of the IT. Act, 1961, that the said amount represented the cash credits in the books of the firm, M/s. K. Or Co., which was the proprietary concern of the deceased and which could not be satisfactorily explained by the deceased, that, therefore, this amount should be taken to represent the suppressed profit of the deceased and that it should have been available either as cash or as investment and passed on to the heirs of the deceased on his death. He, therefore, called upon the accountable persons to show cause why it should not be added, as undisclosed cash assets of the deceased, to the principal value of the estate. The accountable persons contended that the settlement was effected with the Department to purchase peace and that, in reality, the amount represented genuine loans which had been returned to the lenders by the deceased himself and, therefore, no portion of the said sum of Rs. 3,60,773 passed on the death of the deceased. The Asst. Controller, however, did not accept this contention taking the view that by reason of the settlement the amount was considered to represent the concealed pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t remaining in the hands of the deceased at the time of his death. The Tribunal, after a due consideration of the matter, accepted the contention of the accountable persons that the actual existence of an asset, to the extent of the addition made for the assessment year in question on the date of the death of the deceased, had to be established and the mere fact that the assessee agreed for an order under S. 271(4A) of the I.T. Act for the inclusion of Rs. 3,60,773 as undisclosed income could. not be taken as an admission on their part that cash or investment to the value of Rs. 3,60,77 3 -existed on the date of the death of the deceased. The Tribunal took support for its view from the decision of the Kerala High Court in Annamma Paul v. CWT [1973] 88 ITR 204, and of the Mysore High Court in Veerabhadrappa Chigateri v. CED [1970] 77 ITR 666. The Revenue relied on a decision of this court in Smt. R. V. Kamalam v. CWT [1973] 87 ITR 265, but the Tribunal distinguished that case on the ground that the decision had rested on the special facts of that case. The Tribunal ultimately held that there were no materials to support the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 assessed by the Asst. Controller a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eirs that jewels of the value of only Rs. 3,350 were left by the deceased. In respect of the W.T. assessments for the subsequent years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee's claim that jewels worth Rs. 1,00,000 had not passed but only those of the value of Rs. 3,350 had been left by him was negatived on the ground that no tangible material to substantiate that contention was produced. This court held that as no acceptable evidence was adduced to substantiate the contention that the deceased had left behind jewels worth Rs. 3,350 only, to displace the order of the Tribunal in respect of the wealth-tax assessment for 1959-60 the Tribunal was right in its view that the assessee had inherited jewels worth Rs. 1,00,000 on the death of the deceased and those continued in her hands even in the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The decision in that case purely rested on the special facts of that case. In the W.T. assessment for the previous year, the assessee was found to have held jewels worth about Rs. 1,00,000. In the next assessment year in respect of which the assessment was made after the death of the deceased, having regard to the close proximity of time, the court felt that inasmu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in 1957, the Asst. Controller included, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 33,000 as the value of the jewellery in the possession of the deceased at the time of his death. In the estate duty return the accountable person had shown the value of the jewellery in the possession of the deceased at his death as Rs. 2,300 only. The Asst. Controller relied on the fact that the deceased had estimated the jewellery at Rs. 50,000 in the wealth statement furnished by him in connection with the assessment under the I.T. Act for the assessment year 1952-53. The question arose whether the wealth statement given by the deceased long earlier to his death could form the basis for an inference that the jewels mentioned in the wealth statement continued to exist at the time of his death. The court held that the burden was on the Department to show that at the time of his death the deceased was in possession of jewellery worth Rs. 33,000 and as there was no material on which the Controller and the Board of Revenue could have come to the conclusion that the deceased at the time of his death was in possession of the jewellery valued at Rs. 3 3,000, their decision could not be upheld. In support of that conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act, that the secreted income related to the period 1939 to 1946 and as considerable time had elapsed there cannot be any presumption that the amount remained with the assessee so that it could be included in the net wealth for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and that the more fact that the assessee arrived at a settlement with the Department under s. 34(1B) of the Act and that the assessee was assessed on the concealed income would not establish that the assessee retained the assessed income even though the monies had already gone from its coffers. It was held that the Tribunal was right in deleting the amount of Rs. 59,48,714 from the net wealth of the assessee. In this case, the settlement with the Department by the legal representatives of the deceased related to the period from April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1966. Though the case of the accountable persons was that the income from undisclosed sources relating to the subject-matter of the settlement is an actual borrowing made by the deceased, that was not accepted by the I.T. authorities and it is not open to the assessee to put forward, such a plea in those proceedings. But the fact remains that the period, during whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
