9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15th December, 1987 at the instance of the Assessing Officer deposing as follows :--- "1. That I own about 24 kilas of agricultural land in Village Itti, Post Office Sujanpur, Tehsil Pathankot. 2. That part of the above-mentioned land was bequeathed by my late mother Smt. Bhag Dai which was transferred in my name after her death and part of the land was given to me as my share after the death of my father along with other heirs. 3. That the above mentioned land is under cultivation and Maize, Paddy, Wheat etc., are grown there. 4. That three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each were acquired by me in following names which are owned by and belong to me vide details as under :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amount No. Date of Acquisition Name ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 50000 S. 676530 28-4-1986 Miss Kiran Bala 50000 S. 676535 28-4-1986 Smt. Sureshta Rani & Miss Paramjit. 50000 S. 676534 28-4-1986 Miss Paramjit & Harbans Lal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. That, I also got Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 24,000 as compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn of wealth filed on 30-5-1985. In fact the assessee along with his brother Shri Hans Raj and mother Smt. Janki Devi became entitled to Rs. 14,24,172 for additional compensation and interest on the land of his father acquired in 1964, these amounts were as per arbitration award and were paid to the assessee before 27-4-1983 an amount of 4,74,724 came to the share of the assessee and the FDRs of 3,75,000 were purchased by the assessee including FDRs of 150000 in the name of his wife Smt. Sureshta Rani and two minor daughters. The details of these FDRs are as under :--- 27-4-1983 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani and two minor daughters. Total : Rs. 1,50,000 30-4-1983 1,25,000 13-5-1983 1,00,000 -------- Total : 3,75,000 -------- Since all of these FDRs including 3 FDRs of 50000 each were purchased on 22-6-1983 and are from the share of additional compensation and interest received by the assessee as above, the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 is, therefore, to be assessed in the hands of Shri Harbans Lal though FDRs have been purchased in the names of his wife and minor daughters and the source of purchase is from the compensation received by the assessee." 5. In the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the award. An amount of Rs. 4,74,724 came to the share of the assessee and out of this amount the assessee purchased FDRs of Rs. 3,75,000, which included three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani W/o the assessee and his two minor daughters. While filing the Wealth-tax return for the Assessment year 1984-85 on 30-5-1985, the assessee declared net wealth of Rs. 4,63,835, which included these three FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each. However the above wealth-tax return was revised on 12-12-1985 in which return the above 3 FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each were excluded. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was claimed that the 3 FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani W/o the assessee and his 2 minor daughters Miss Kiran Bala and Miss Paramjit, were their, separate properties and as such were not liable to be included in the total wealth of the assessee and in support of that an affidavit of Smt. Sureshta Rani was filed, which has been reproduced by my learned Brother in para 2 of his proposed order. However, the Assessing Officer, after perusal of the affidavit, asked the assessee to file copies of the FDRs or the accounts which were operated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by the deponents in the Affidavits. The above view of Hon'ble Supreme Court was further explained by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Gunwantibai Ratilal v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 140 wherein it is held as under :--- "An Affidavit is a piece of evidence which, along with the other material on record, has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal before arriving at a finding. A statement by a deponent can be held to be unreliable by the Tribunal either on the basis of a cross-examination of the deponent or by reference to other material on record leading to the inference that the statement made in the affidavit, cannot be held to be true." 15. In the present case, as has been discussed earlier, the FDRs of Rs. 50,000 each in the financial year relevant to the Asstt. year 1984-85 were purchased by the assessee in the name of Smt. Sureshta Rani W/o the assessee and 2 minor daughters, out of the compensation money amounting to Rs. 4,74,724, which came to the assessee's share as a result of arbitration award and as such the FDRs in fact belonged to the assessee and as such were rightly includible in the wealth of the assessee in view of the provisions of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer thereupon asked the counsel of the assessee to produce copies of FDRs purchased before 27-4-1983 on which date the assessee received a sum of Rs. 4,74,724 as additional compensation and interest on the basis of Arbitration Award. The learned counsel was not able to produce any evidence but filed an affidavit of Smt. Sureshta Rani in which it was deposed that these FDRs were purchased by her jointly with her daughters. The Assessing Officer however found that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 as part of additional compensation and interest on 27-4-1983. Thereupon the assessee purchased three FDRs in the names of his wife and two minor daughters on 27-4-1983. Over and above, he also purchased another FDR for Rs. 1,25,000 on 30-4-1983 and for Rs. 1 lakh on 13-5-1983 making a total of Rs. 3,75,000. The Assessing Officer accordingly included Rs. 1,50,000 as forming part of the net wealth of the assessee. 3. On appeal, the learned Dy. CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition observing that having called for the affidavit of Smt. Sureshta Rani, the WTO had not controverted the contents in the deposition as no cross-examination had been done nor any opportunity has been accorded before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the I Accountant Member is in order and has to be upheld. The assessee in this case received a sum of Rs. 4,74,724 on 27-4-1983. Out of this there is no dispute about the investment of Rs. 2,25,000 by the assessee on 30-4-1983 and 13-5-1983. In regard to the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000, it is the claim of the assessee that the FDRs were purchased by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources. At one stage, the A.O. asked the assessee to produce the copies of the FDRs to prove the purchase of these FDRs on or before the date of receipt of compensation money by the assessee. The assessee could not produce any evidence. Later on it was claimed that these FDRs were re-investment of the old FDRs but the same also could not be proved. Even admitting that this investment of Rs. 1,50,000 was made by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources, the fact remains that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 and this amount of Rs. 1,50,000 has not been shown either in cash or otherwise. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in any case has to be treated as assets of the assessee. I hold accordingly and uphold the, finding of the learned Accountant Member. 7. The matter will go back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
