9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, therefore, disposed of by a common order. 2. For each of the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, the assessee declared the value of his property situated abroad, i.e., No. 38, Jalan Tharasu, at $ 10,000. The WTO accepted the same and completed the assessments accordingly. 3. Later on, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79, the WTO found that the auctioneer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssments. Aggrieved by the consolidated order of the AAC, the department has filed the present appeals. 5. On the date of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The appeals were, therefore, heard ex parte. 6. After going through the record and hearing the learned representative of the department, we do not find any substance in these appeals. The assessee disclosed fully and truly al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t years. According to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 1 the WTO could not take recourse to section 17(1)(a) to remedy the error resulting from his failure to apply his mind and omission to make the necessary enquiries. 7. The learned representative of the department prays that the reassessments under consideration should be considered as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essments under section 17(1)(b). The mere fact that the value of this property was estimated by the auctioneers at $ 40,000 and $ 50,000 as in January 1978 and January 1979 is not, by itself, sufficient to hold that the value of the property was necessarily more than $ 10,000 in the assessment years under consideration so as to believe that wealth chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. In the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in Tulsidas Kilachand v. D.R. Chawla [1980] 122 ITR 458 and the Madras High Court in Family of V.A.M. Sankaralinga Nadar v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 314. Thus, in our opinion, the department has no case even under section 17(1)(b). 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the AAC is sound and calls for no interference. We, accordingly, confirm his order. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
