9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which he had raised before the Tribunal are : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the language of section 14 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (No. 8 of 1976), and the communication of the Commissioner of Income-tax thereon the redone assessments as they stand modified are legally justified and supportable in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the seized, documents being inchoate documents and pronotes whether they constituted the income of the assessee ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the evidence on record the Tribunal was right in rejecting the thandal basis of these transactions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es before the Income-tax Officer. The Income-tax Officer did not consider their evidence to be credible and rejected the same. He thereafter proceeded to make the assessment on the basis that the assessee did not carry on thandal business. On appeal, the appellate authority held that some part of the income was derived from thandal business and he reduced the quantum for which the assessee had been assessed. The Revenue as also the assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected both sets of appeals and affirmed the order of the appellate authority. The Tribunal noticed the nature of the Commissioner's communication, which had made the acceptance of the voluntary disclosure conditional upon the assessee proving that he h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, and that the pronotes which were taken into account for the purpose of assessment were pronotes, which represented the unaccounted income of the assessee-company the amount of the extra interest charged, but not disclosed to the Department. We do not find any question meriting reference and the tax case petitions deserve to be dismissed. We must record our displeasure at the manner in which these petitions have been prosecuted by the assessee. The order of the Tribunal was passed more than 20 years ago in May, 1978. The assessee lodged his petitions in this court on December 5, 1978. However, the assessee did not comply with all the procedural requirements for almost 20 years and the petitions came to be numbered only on July 15, 1997. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
