TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal Nos. 550, 551, 552, 553 and 554 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2016 - Ramesh Kumar Datta And Sudhir Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : D. V. Pathy and Mrs. Manju Jha For the Respondent : Hars Bardhan Prasad, Archana Sahi, Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants in all the five cases and learned counsel for the Income-tax Department. 2. All the five appeals relate to the same assessee for five different assessment years which have been filed against a common order dated May 16, 2008 passed in I. T. A. Nos. 93/Pat to 97/Pat of 2007 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and accordingly, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellant was an officer of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar and posted as Regional Joint Director of the said Department at Ranchi during the year 1990-91, as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi from 1992 to June, 1995 and as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa from June, 1995. He is one of the main accused in the cases registered by the C. B. I. in connection with misappropriati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee, at different substantial amounts for the different years under section 144/147 of the Act and penalty proceedings were separately initiated by separate orders dated March 12, 1999 for the different assessment years. The appeals preferred against the said orders, being Appeal Nos. 282 to 286/A- 1/04-05, were dismissed on November 7, 2006 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Patna. Further appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, being I. T. A. No. 93/97/Pat/2007, were also dismissed, by order dated May 16, 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed, which were admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether in view of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance the assets both moveable and immovable could be a subject matter of assessment under the Act particularly, when the same are a subject matter of absolute attachment and are to be restored to the State Government ? (ii) Whether the assessment of income and the corresponding investments amount to taxation of the same income twice ? (iii) Whether the valuation of asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wholly irrelevant for the said purpose. So far as making of the assessment of the person who has derived that income by whatever manner in a particular assessment year is concerned, the liability would remain, irrespective of the attachment or even the forfeiture of the property if it so happens and it would be open to the Department to recover the liability under the assessment order through whatever process is permitted under the Act and Rules. 11. Even on a consideration of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, it is evident that the attachment is only made where a person has committed any scheduled offence on the application of the State Government, and the amount of money or value of other property is believed to have been procured by means of the offence. It further provides that if such money or property cannot for any reason be attached, then other property of the said person of value as nearly as may be equivalent to that of the aforesaid money or other property may be attached. It must be understood that mere attachment of the property cannot be equated with its forfeiture to the State Government. Such forfeiture depends upon the person whose property has been at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to accept the stand of learned counsel for the Revenue in this regard and find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed that the source of income was being generated continuously by the appellant and his other co-accused and further the appellant has been unable to show before the authorities of the Department that a particular amount from a particular bank account has been used for the purchase of specific property, movable and immovable, and in the said circumstances, there could be no question of any telescoping being permitted. 16. On the last question, it is submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that it was not open to the Assessing Officer to have confirmed the addition on the basis of mere statement of a third party without giving an opportunity of cross-examining to the appellant and without there being any other relevant or corroborative evidence or material. Learned counsel specifically refers to addition of Rs. twenty five lakhs in the assessment year 1995-96 on the statement of one Md. Sayeed. 17. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the said issue has specifically been considered both by the Assessing Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gencies from the suppliers named in the assessment order were also available on record. Since the appellant himself did not comply, he could not be given any copies, the gist of which however were conveyed to him for elucidating his explanation through notice under section 142(1). 19. At another place it has been held by the Commissioner of Income-tax as follows : Regarding the statements on oath of Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma, Sri S.C. Verma and certain other suppliers to be Md. Sayeed etc., this issue is already adjudicated upon earlier in this order. These statements were recorded and appellant was confronted but due to repeated non-compliances default laid with the appellant alone. 20. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the assessee had been given sufficient opportunity in the matter. At no point of time, did he raise the plea that copies of the statements of such persons or such evidence ought to be supplied to him or that he intended to cross-examine them. In the absence of any such stand by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or any such demand by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, it is not open to him to tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
