TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... close income fully and truly and thus initiation of proceedings under section 147(a)/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was without any jurisdiction.? " The ITO gave a notice under s. 147(a) to the assessee and in pursuance of that notice the ITO finally held that a house property known as " Devi Asha " belonged to the assessee up to 1939 and was transferred by him to his wife without adequate consideration. The ITO as such clubbed the income from the house in the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved against the order of the ITO, the assessee Went up in appeal to the AAC. Learned AAC found that in order to confer jurisdiction under s. 147(a) two conditions were to be satisfied, firstly that the ITO must have reason to believe that income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same. According to the Tribunal any averment made in the sale deed was not material and, as such, the averments did not confer any title in favour of a third person. The Tribunal thus held that there should have been some reason to believe, and not reason to suspect only, by the ITO before resorting to take action under s. 147(a)/148 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal further found that from the evidence on record it was clear that Smt. Kamala Kumari had been in possession of the property for more than 12 years. She was also in possession of the property as owner in 1950 when the I.T. Act came into force for the first time in the State of Rajasthan. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the assessee had also been accepting Smt. Kamala K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Department. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the material available on record, have clearly arrived at the conclusion that Smt. Kamala Kumari had come into possession of the property in question in 1939. Thereafter, the property was being shown in her ownership even in the Municipal records and the assessee had never challenged the ownership of Smt. Kamala Kumari at any time. In these circumstances, it was found that the assessee had not committed any error in not mentioning the income of this property in his own return and no proceedings for escaped assessment could have been taken under s. 147(a)/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the above findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
