9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (1) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et entry dt. 23rd March, 1974: " 23rd March, 1974. The assessee transferred two plots No. 460 and 461 in Lajpat Nagar, Jullundur to his sons S/Shri Vinod Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Anil Kumar and Pawan Kumar. These plots were originally allotted to the assessee by the Improvement Trust, Jullundur and were later on transferred in the name of his sons on 30th March, 1970. The assessee took nominal profit in this transaction. Ultimately these plots were sold in September, 1970 i.e., within a period of six months and the profit earned in the transaction was divided amongst the four brothers who are the sons of the assessee. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee transferred these plots in March, 1970 to his sons who are directly or indirectly conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the buyers i.e., the sons of the assessee were also disclosed before the ITO at the original assessment stage and the letter was addressed to the four sons of the assessee conveying to them that plot Nos. 460 and 461 in Lajpat Nagar had been transferred in their names. These are all the necessary facts which had been fully and truly disclosed by the assessee at the stage of the original assessment and we see no failure on the part of the assessee to justify the re-opening of the assessment under s. 147(a) of the IT Act. If there was any failure it was on the part of the ITO, who failed to invoke the provisions of s. 52(1) of the IT Act, which he has later sought to invoke in the re-assessment framed. We may also point out that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory provisions of s. 52(1) in case the necessary requirements were satisfied. Action under s. 52(1) had to be taken by the ITO and there was no duty cast on the assessee in that regard. It was the duty of the ITO to make any investigations, if he considered necessary about the market value in March, 1970 of the two plots after the assessee had disclosed the full particulars about the sale. In this connection reference may be made to one of the latest authorities from the Supreme Court ITO vs. Madanani Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 144 : (1979) 118 ITR 1 (SC). We may also refer to two other decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Burlop Dealers Ltd. (1971) 79 ITR, 609, (SC) and Gemini Leather Stores vs. ITO 1975 CTR (SC) 127 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
