TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the writ petitioners was that they were employees of K.D.Bali and money as well as car belonged to K.D.Bali, Income Tax Officer, Hoshiarpur after issuing necessary statutory notices passed order of assessment dated 27.3.1997 for assessment year 1994-95 adding the said amount to the income of K.D.Bali. The CIT(A) set aside addition which has been upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against which ITA No.634 of 2005 has been filed. 3. Stand of K.D.Bali was that as per affidavit dated 25.7.1994 filed by Deep Chand and Suram Singh with the authorities, the amount was delivered to them by K.D.Kaushal, property dealer of Ropar for being delivered to Tarsem Singh. Tarsem Singh was also one of the petitioners in the writ petition originally filed and had laid claim to the amount on that basis. However, he later withdrew his claim and got his name deleted from the writ petition. The Income Tax Officer, Dasuya vide order of assessment dated 21.3.2002 added the amount to the income of Tarsem Singh. Tarsem Singh took the plea that the amount did not belong to him. He explained that K.D.Kaushal denied having sent the money, his earlier statement was by mistake. The CIT(A) set as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orcement assessment was illegal. The assessment made against K.D.Bali had been set aside. Assessment in the hands of Tarsem Singh was also under challenge. Thus, the different assessment orders against different persons could not have been passed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue, assessee K.D.Bali and Tarsem Singh, Directorate of Enforcement and the writ petitioners Suram Singh and Deep Chand and perused the record. We are of the view that the money belongs to K.D.Bali which was initial version of Deep Chand and Suram Singh and substantive assessment in the hands of K.D.Bali and protective assessment in the hands of Deep Chand and Suram Singh are fully justified. CWP No.9610 of 1994 is liable to be dismissed while ITA No.634 of 2005 deserves to be allowed. ITA No.341 of 2009 has to be dismissed as not pressed. The reasons follow:- 7. Stand of the revenue is that the substantive assessment in the hands of K.D.Bali was rightly made and the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in law in interfering with the same. Substantial question of law as to perversity of finding of the Tribunal was involved and was required to be answered in favour of the revenue by setting as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a sum of Rs.50 lacs was seized from Deep Chand, driver and Suram Singh travelling in car No.PB-24-2300, statements of Deep Chand and Suram Singh were recorded by Income Tax Inspector. The said statements have been annexed as Annexures R/4 and R/5 to the application filed by the Income Tax Department in the writ petition. The same have been referred to in the order of assessment. Suram Singh stated that he was a Salesman at the petrol pump of K.D.Bali and was getting salary of Rs.750/- per month. Deep Chand stated that he was driver of father of K.D.Bali at a salary of Rs.1400/- per month. They went to Delhi to collect Rs.50 lacs from J.P.Gupta on behalf of K.D.Bali. K.D.Bali was also detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 in pursuance of order of detention dated 6.5.1994 on the basis of the said transaction. Though K.D.Bali in his statement recorded on 13.9.93 denied any link with the amount, his stand was that Suram Singh was his employee earlier and had left in the year 1991. He knew J.P.Gupta who was doing work of sale and purchase of cars in Delhi. He, however, denied owning the car in question and kno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. Relevant observations are:- "I have considered the arguments of the appellant. The A.O. Has relied on the statement of Sh.Suram Singh and Sh. Deep Chand recorded by the Inspector on 13.3.93 and no opportunity was allowed by him to the appellant to cross-examine these witnesses and whose statements he had relied on. The AO has also not made proper investigation regarding the ownership of the car and he has also not investigated as to why the money of Rs.50 lacs was being sent by Sh. J.P.Gupta as per AO's version. There is nothing on record to show as to why the claim of Sh. Tarsem Singh should be discarded. There are too many loose ends and proper enquiries are required to be made in this case. In view of this, it is fair to set aside this issue and restore, it to he file of the AO for making proper examination and for passing a fresh order after making necessary enquiries and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is set aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-examination and passing a fresh order on this issue." 13. After remand, the assessing officer issued a fresh notice to the assessee and also issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onic calls to him as and when he required his services. This shows that some activities existed between him and Sh. Gupta. vii) The later version of Sh. K.D.Bali that he does not know anything about Sh. J.P.Gupta and he has no link with him cannot be believed to be correct in view of his statement dated 13.9.93. viii) The claim over the cash of Rs.50 lacs put forth by Sh. Tarsem Singh and the retraction of Sh. Suram Singh and Sh. Deep Chand is nothing but an after thought and based on the false story. This has been proved by Sh. K.D.Kaushal beyond doubt, though his statement as mentioned above in details. ix) Sh. K.D.Bali failed of offer any comments upon the statement of Sh. K.D.Kaushal. x) The retraction of Sh. Suram Singh and Sh. Deep Chand has also been proved to be untrue by the facts stated by Sh. K.,D. Kaushal in his statements dt. 19.11.99 and 30.11.99. xi) Enquiries were also made regarding the ownership of car bearing No.PB-24-2300 as per the directions of the ld. CIT(A) a request was made to the SDMN Garshanker vide this office letter dt. 25.10.99 to furnish the following information in respect of Fiat Car No. PB-24-2300:- a) Full....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material to connect K.D.Bali with the amount. Relevant observations are:- "As mentioned earlier the money was found in possession of three persons who were in the car and who are no more traceable. The car is registered in the name of Sh. Baldev Sharma but has been handed over to Sh. Sukhdev Singh by the Court and no efforts has been made by any authority to dispute this order of superdari which was based on the claim of Sh. Sukhdev Singh that the car belonged to him thus even the connection of car with Sh. K.D.Bali has become remote. Only other things that connects the amount of Rs.50 lacs to Sh. K.D.Bali are the statements of Sh. Suram Singh and Sh. Deep Chand who are not available for cross-examination. In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that Sh. K.D.Bali is the owner of Rs.50 lacs. In these circumstances, I am unable to hold that Rs.50 lacs represented income of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T.Act and therefore the addition of Rs.50 lacs made by the A.O. Is deleted." 15. The same view was taken by the Tribunal. 16. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that mere fact that Sukhdev Singh got the car released on superdari could not be conclusive ....