TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 29th Oct., 1982 on one ticket purchased by two minor sons jointly, the assessee as their father/guardian applied to the ITO for deduction of tax at source at a lower rate on 22nd Nov., 1982 as per the provisions of s. 197(1)(a) of the IT Act, r/w r. 28(1B) of the IT Rules. The ITO concerned also took an affidavit from the assessee, recorded the statement of the assessee and then issued the required certificate for lower rate of deduction of tax at source for the two minor sons. Much later the AC (Asstt)-II, Jaipur appears to have felt that this money was, in fact, the individual money of the assessee. He found out the vendor of the lottery ticket on which the prize was won. He was one Shri Mangaram of Ajmer. It appears that he went to Ajm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to read, nor was it read over to him, he only admitted having signed that statement. Disbelieving the claims of the assessee to the effect that the prize had been won by his two minor sons and that it was not prize won by the assessee, so also rejecting the subsequent statement of Shri Mangaram and believing his first statement that in fact no prize had been won by the minor sons of the assessee; that this was a device to laundry his black money into white, a device which had been perhaps employed by elder brother of the assessee when elder brother s two minor sons were also stated to have won first prize in a lottery amounting to Rs. 1 lakh each. The IAC (Asst.), thus, held that the assessee had purchased the ticket for atleast s. 1,80,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Managaram had been won over by the assessees to resile from his earlier statement which was recorded unawares and when he had stated the truth. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the facts, evidence and arguments given in detail in the order of the learned CIT(A). However, so far as the argument of the learned Departmental Representative was concerned, he submitted that there were many things in the assessment order, particularly in para 14 of that order, which would show that the IAC concerned had shown more than the due interest in disposing of this assessment had had sworn his truthfulness even in the assessment order, which was against the accepted practice. He further highlighted the points which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e can at betters arouse a suspicion that it might have been the assessee s own investment but it is a well know principle of law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof. In the instant case also as against the suspicion aroused by the circumstances so also the statement of Shri Mangha Ram, there is ample evidence to prove that the allegations of the Department cannot be accepted. Hence, for reasons discussed above, so also discussed by the learned CIT(A), we agree that the assessee cannot be held to have invested the amount of Rs. 1,90,000 for the purchase of the lottery ticket as has been alleged by the IAC (Asst). Further, even if for the sake of arguments, all the allegations of the Department are accepted, still the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
