TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue of silver utensils. The additions sustained in the assessments were as follows: increase in the value of . Surana House SOP Rs.39,435 in the firm M/s. Hazarimal . Milapchand relating to properties . Green House and Blue Sky Rs. 52,887 (iii) Valkue of silver utensils omitted Rs. 4,000 The corresponding additions in the case of Narendra Kumar Soorana were: (i) Surana House Rs. 4,750 (ii) Share in partnership firm Rs. 80,700 (iii) Silver Utensils Rs. 4,000 The additions made in the case of Nirmal Kumar are as follows: (i) Share in partnership firm Rs.52,887 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect value of assessee s share in Soorana House and there was no reason for the assessee to omit to take into consideration the unrecorded expenditure relating to additions to Surana House made in the periods relevant to asst. yrs.1966-67 to1968-69. Similarly, according to the WTO, the assessees failed to include their shares of the unrecorded expenditure relating to additions made to the property, Green House . The value of this property was Rs. 84,747. The firm had accepted that additions to the extent of Rs. 72,000 were made to the above house and this expenditure was not recorded in the books of the firm. In the settlement, the above amount was offered for taxation. The value of the property amounted to Rs. 1,56,747 while the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asset or debts; (b) Under the deeming provisions of Expln. 4 to s. 18(1)(c), if the value of any asset returned is less than 70% of the value of such asset as determined in the assessment. The CWT (Appeals) tested the WTO s order in the light of the propositions laid down by him. He held that (i) the assessee declared his interest in the firm s property. There was no omission on this account. It cannot be said that the assessee failed to furnish any particulars regarding his interest in the firm, (ii) that the tax effect in respect of self-occupied property came to only to Rs. 4,750 after giving effect to the AAC s order in the quantum assessment. The difference in valuation. (iii) In the assessment for 1974-75, the WTO had considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired for Rs. 2,55,000 as erroneously assumed by the WTO. The property was purchased for Rs. 54,999 by M/s. Mannalal Nirmalkumar Soorana (HUF) from Shri Khan Bahadur Altaf Ahmed Kheri virtue of a registered sale deed dt. 15th Oct, 1963. The HUF spend Rs. 22,266, Rs. 22,666 and Rs. 13,500 in the properties relating to asst. yrs. 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69. These investments were not recorded in the books, but offered for assessment later on by virtue of settlement on 24th March, 1975. The property was valued from an approved valuer on 26th Nov, 1968 for Rs. 2,02,448. The HUF was partitioned on 27th April, 1971 and the value recorded for purpose of partition was Rs. 2,55,000. Thus the property was not purchased for Rs. 2,55,000 as originall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The firm s books were debited with that sum. Thereafter, the value was shown in the balance sheet with an yearly depreciation of 2.5%. Thus, when the property was valued at Rs. 1,50,000 on 8th June, 1971, the additions and alterations, which were the subject matter of disclosure, had already been taken care of. There were thus no concealment. Hence, whatever difference in the valuation notice in the WT assessments was due to the departmental valuer adopting his own standard of valuations, but certainly it cannot be stated that the assessee suppressed any material particulars regarding the properties. So far as the Blue Sky was concerned, the property was purchased for Rs. 87,455 on 30th April, 1969 by Nirmalkumar Soorana. This property w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
