TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the Assessing Officer in respect of Himayat Nagar property and Erra Manzil Property though he has confirmed the additions in respect of Shivam Land and Bharkatpura Land even these additions are on the same footing. Further the revenue is appeal before us in ITA No. 954/H/2007 with regard to deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act without any valid reasons. 3. The assessee is in appeal before us in ITA No. 1026/H/2007 with regard to sustaining additions in respect of Shivam Land and Bharkatpura Land. 4. Brief facts of the issue as stated by the assessee are that the assessee was an MLA of Andhra Pradesh during the assessment year under consideration. He was receiving salary of Rs. 2,50....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 was served on 28-3-2004 and as there was no compliance for this notice, a notice under section 142(1) dated 28-12-2004 was issued requiring the assessee to file the return of income for the assessment under consideration on or before 17-1-2005. Since there was no compliance, Inspector of IT attached to his office was deputed for service of the notice under section 142(1) dated 8-2-2005 and the Inspector, in his report mentioned that : "The assessee is in Erawada Central Jail, Puna, Maharashtra State, since 1½ years. Nobody is ready to take the notice or letter and refused to take the same acknowledge the same. It is also ascertained that the assessee has not authorised any one to take the notices or letters in his absence. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m issue and penalty separately to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income from salary at Rs. 25,000 p.m. from April 2001 to December, 2001 and Rs. 40,000 p.m. from January 2002 to March, 2002 totalling of Rs. 3,45,000 for the Financial Year 2001-02. Further, the addition regarding Shivam Land at Rs. 15,27,500 was reduced to Rs. 7,63,750 , Himayat Nagar land at Rs. 30 lakhs was deleted, Bharkatpura land at Rs. 10 lakhs confirmed and Erramanzil land at Rs. 14 lakhs deleted by the CIT(A). Regarding penalty, the CIT(A) deleted the same. Against the deletion of addition in respect of Himayatnagar and Erramanzil properties and penalty, the revenue is in appeal before us. The assessee is in appeal before us i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis for impugned addition. As seen from the loose documents as scanned by the CIT(A) in his order, these are just hand written loose documents. There is no presumption in law that the Assessing Officer is supposed to discharge tax liability by direct evidence only and thereupon determined the income beyond doubt. The income of the assessee is to be computed by the Assessing Officer on the basis of available record. In many a time, it is very important to have direct evidence or conclusive evidence to prove to determine the income. When the assessee gives an evasive reply to the Assessing Officer, he has no choice but to take estimation of the income. The only thing is it should be reasonable on the basis of material available on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....traced and examined any of the parties. The department cannot draw inference on the basis of suspicion, conjuncture and surmise. Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of material in support of the findings of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer should act in a judicious manner, proceed with judicial spirit and should come to a judicial conclusion. The Assessing Officer is required to act fairly as a reasonable person and not arbitrarily and capriciously. Assessment made should have adequate material and it should stand on its own legs. The Assessing Officer without examining any party cannot come to the conclusion that the assessee made investment in land. The basis for addition is only note book/loose slips. These note book/....