9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer deposing as follows :--- "1. That I own about 24 kilas of agricultural land in Village Itti, Post Office Sujanpur, Tehsil Pathankot. 2. That part of the above-mentioned land was bequeathed by my late mother Smt. Bhag Dai which was transferred in my name after her death and part of the land was given to me as my share after the death of my father along with other heirs. 3. That the above mentioned land is under cultivation and Maize, Paddy, Wheat etc., are grown there. 4. That three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each were acquired by me in following names which are owned by and belong to me vide details as under :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount No. Date of Acquisition Name ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50000 S. 676530 28-4-1986 Miss Kiran Bala 50000 S. 676535 28-4-1986 Smt. Sureshta Rani Miss Paramjit. 50000 S. 676534 28-4-1986 Miss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-4-1986. When Shri L.R. Vasudeva, counsel for the assessee appeared last it has been contended that the copies of DRS held by Smt. Sureshta Rani prior to 28-4-86 are not available. The assessee has declared the FDRs of 150000 in his original return of wealth filed on 30-5-1985. In fact the assessee along with his brother Shri Hans Raj and mother Smt. Janki Devi became entitled to Rs. 14,24,172 for additional compensation and interest on the land of his father acquired in 1964, these amounts were as per arbitration award and were paid to the assessee before 27-4-1983 an amount of 4,74,724 came to the share of the assessee and the FDRs of 3,75,000 were purchased by the assessee including FDRs of 150000 in the name of his wife Smt. Sureshta Rani and two minor daughters. The details of these FDRs are as under :--- 27-4-1983 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani and two minor daughters. Total : Rs. 1,50,000 30-4-1983 1,25,000 13-5-1983 1,00,000 -------- Total : 3,75,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed at in paras 5 6 by my learned Sr. Colleague, does not appear to be correct on the following reasoning and analysis. 11. The undisputed facts are that the assessee along with his brother Sh. Hans Raj and mother Smt.Janki Devi became entitled to Rs. 14,24,172 on account of Compensation/Additional Compensation/Interest etc. on account of the land of his father, acquired in 1964,and the above amounts were paid to the assessee, his brother and his mother before 27-4-1983 as per the award. An amount of Rs. 4,74,724 came to the share of the assessee and out of this amount the assessee purchased FDRs of Rs. 3,75,000, which included three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani W/o the assessee and his two minor daughters. While filing the Wealth-tax return for the Assessment year 1984-85 on 30-5-1985, the assessee declared net wealth of Rs. 4,63,835, which included these three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each. However the above wealth-tax return was revised on 12-12-1985 in which return the above 3 FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each were excluded. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was claimed that the 3 FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani W/o the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rikh Co. cannot be construed to lay down the proposition that unless the deponents are cross-examined, the Affidavits cannot be rejected. It only lays down that if there is no material, whatsoever, on record for doubting the veracity of the statements made in the Affidavits and if the deponents have also not been subjected to cross-examination for bringing Out the fallacity of their statements, the Tribunal would not be justified in doubting the correctness of the statements made by the deponents in the Affidavits. The above view of Hon'ble Supreme Court was further explained by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Gunwantibai Ratilal v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 140 wherein it is held as under :--- "An Affidavit is a piece of evidence which, along with the other material on record, has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal before arriving at a finding. A statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable by the Tribunal either on the basis of a cross-examination of the deponent or by reference to other material on record leading to the inference that the statement made in the affidavit, cannot be held to be true." 15. In the present case, as has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere assessable in the hands of the respondent can be said to be legally correct ?" 2. The facts are that the assessee disclosed investment of Rs. 1,50,000 in three F.D.Rs. in the names of his wife Smt. Sureshta Rani and daughters Miss Paramjit and Miss Kiran Bala. The assessee thereafter filed revised return excluding these three F.D.Rs. It was contended before the Assessing Officer that Smt. Sureshta Rani purchased these F.D.Rs. alongwith her daughters from her own sources. The Assessing Officer thereupon asked the counsel of the assessee to produce copies of FDRs purchased before 27-4-1983 on which date the assessee received a sum of Rs. 4,74,724 as additional compensation and interest on the basis of Arbitration Award. The learned counsel was not able to produce any evidence but filed an affidavit of Smt. Sureshta Rani in which it was deposed that these FDRs were purchased by her jointly with her daughters. The Assessing Officer however found that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 as part of additional compensation and interest on 27-4-1983. Thereupon the assessee purchased three FDRs in the names of his wife and two minor daughters on 27-4-1983. Over and above, he also purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h-tax Act. He accordingly held that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 has been rightly added to the wealth of the assessee. 6. On this difference of opinion, the question extracted above has been referred to me for decision. At the hearing before me Shri S.C. Pahwa learned Sr. D.R. appeared for the revenue and Shri L.R. Vasudeva, learned counsel for the assessee. They were heard at length. On careful consideration of the rival submiss in the light of the material on record, I am of the view that the order of the I Accountant Member is in order and has to be upheld. The assessee in this case received a sum of Rs. 4,74,724 on 27-4-1983. Out of this there is no dispute about the investment of Rs. 2,25,000 by the assessee on 30-4-1983 and 13-5-1983. In regard to the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000, it is the claim of the assessee that the FDRs were purchased by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources. At one stage, the A.O. asked the assessee to produce the copies of the FDRs to prove the purchase of these FDRs on or before the date of receipt of compensation money by the assessee. The assessee could not produce any evidence. Later on it was claimed that these FDRs were re-investment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
