9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich two were exclusively operated by the assessee's wife, Smt. Sudha Chand, and the third was operated by the assessee jointly with his wife. From the first two lockers ornaments and jewellery worth Rs. 44,37,445 and Rs. 12,74,854 were found and seized and from the third locker diamond jewellery worth Rs. 76,000 and cash of Rs. 15,000 were found and seized. In her first statement recorded by the intelligence authorities, Smt. Sudha Chand, disclosed that the seized assets belonged to her. As she could not satisfactorily explain the source from which those assets were acquired and as admittedly these had not been disclosed in her wealth-tax returns, the value of these assets was held to represent her undisclosed income in the order under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eady paid Rs. 2,00,024 towards the tax due on self-assessment. The remaining tax due on self-assessment pertains only to such income as is represented by seized assets Your appellant has already more than paid the tax due on self-assessment for his income other than what is represented by seized assets. Your appellant does not have adequate free assets to pay the remaining tax payable on returned income. Sale proceeds of the seized assets would be more than adequate to liquidate tax on self-assessment. The value of seized assets is Rs. 44,49,673 against remaining tax liability of Rs. 27,68,977." After consideration of the submissions made in the petition, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found this a fit case for exempting the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh seized amounted only to Rs. 15,000. We were told during the course of the arguments, and it is otherwise stated on the record, that orders under section 132(5) have been passed in the proceedings relating both to the assessee and his wife and that thereunder the seized assets have been directed to be retained in the possession of the department. In the context of this factual situation, it was urged by the learned representative of the assessee that firstly in respect of the same assets substantive assessments both in respect of the assessee-husband and his wife could not be framed. On the same reasoning no tax demand based on the discovery of the same assets could be made both against the assessee-husband and his wife. The wife had give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfactory to make out a case for exemption under section 249(4). The departmental challenge to the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) of exemption, therefore, cannot succeed. As regards the merits of the controversy arising from the imposition of penalty under section 140A(3), we feel that here again the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was perfectly justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 140A(3). Since the controversy with regard to the ownership of the assets and the tax liability relating thereto is not directly before us, we, in order to avoid the possibility of any prejudice to any party, would not like to express our opinion on the question of ownership of those assets. Our present discussion is, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department. The conduct of the affairs of the State, which depends upon the recovery of taxes and public dues, cannot wait for the convenience of the taxpayer. In this connection, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 172. The other submission made by the learned Departmental Representative was to the effect that the assessee had purchased a flat worth about Rs. 9,00,000 jointly with his son shortly after the search and that the total assets of the assessee's family members from UFs and the trust of which the assessee, in his capacity as Karta of the HUF, and his family members were beneficiaries, were worth over Rs. 61,00,000. There w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his son shortly after the search operation had not been substantiated on the record. Similarly, it is not shown as to whether the assessee had any other assets of adequate value in the name of the HUFor any trust and that it was possible for the assessee to have disposed of the assets of such HUF or the trust and apply the sale proceeds thereof in the satisfaction of his personal tax demand. 7. From the above discussion of the facts, we conclude that the explanation offered by the assessee for non-payment of self-assessment tax/advance tax could not be held to be otherwise than reasonable and satisfactory and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 140A(3) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
