TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1213
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... June, 1995 and as District Animal Husbandry Officer, Chaibasa from June, 1995. He is one of the main accused in the cases registered by the C. B. I. in connection with misappropriation of funds of the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar. 4. A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") was issued to the assessee followed by notices under section 142(1) of the Act on November 12, 1997 asking him to file income and expenditure account, capital account as on the first date and on the last date of the previous year and further the statements of all assets and liabilities, whether included in the accounts or not and whether standing in his own name or in the name of someone else as on the first date and on the last date of the previous year, directing him to comply with by December 15, 1997. On failure to comply with the same for a long period, the reminders along with show cause for penalty under section 271(1)(b), prosecution under section 276CC and best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act were issued vide letters dated July 1, 1998. Thereafter, by letters dated November 1, 1998, the copies of the valuation reports in respect o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment ? (ii) Whether the assessment of income and the corresponding investments amount to taxation of the same income twice ? (iii) Whether the valuation of assets as made by the Valuation Officer of the Income-tax Department could be made a basis of reassessment under the provisions of section 147 of the Act ? (iv) Whether the confirmation of additions on the basis of the statement of a third party without an opportunity of cross-examination or any other relevant or corroborative evidence or material justified ?" 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the aforesaid third question of law, as evidently the basis of reassessment was not merely the valuation of assets but several other grounds and pieces of evidence. 8. With regard to the first question, it is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that since the assets moveable and immovable which were the subject matter of assessment under the Act, had also been attached under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 by the orders of the court and they were to be eventually restored to the State Government, hence, no assessment could have been made with respect to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chment of the property cannot be equated with its forfeiture to the State Government. Such forfeiture depends upon the person whose property has been attached being ultimately convicted by the criminal court. Even after the conviction a finding has to be recorded as to what part of the property has been procured by the convicted person by means of the scheduled offence and the district judge is required to pass an order of forfeiture only with respect to that part along with personal attachment, etc. and thus neither the final forfeiture nor the forfeiture of the independent property is necessarily made as a result of the attachment. The effect of attachment is merely to prohibit the person or anyone else from dealing with such property. So far as any right upon third party thereafter is concerned, the property continues to be in the name of the said person until a final order of forfeiture of part or whole of the property is passed. Thus it does not appear that the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 envisages anything against the assessment under the Act of any person, who has been found to be in possession of income for a particular year, on the basis of such assets moveable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one Md. Sayeed. 17. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the said issue has specifically been considered both by the Assessing Officer as also the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his appellate order. It is submitted that the statements made by different witnesses with regard to giving such sums of money to the assessee could be considered as corroborative pieces of evidence. 18. In this regard, reference is made to the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which are as follows : "Regarding the ground relating to the Assessing Officer making assessment on the basis of reports of CAG, CBI, I.T. Investigation Directorate and other persons as well as relying on the statements of Sri Sharad Kumar and other suppliers without making available copy of such report, perusal of assessment order clearly shows that the appellant is trying to take shelter behind his own default. Since he did not file any return in response to notice under section 148 nor made any compliance even though notice under section 142(1) was served. It could not be said that the appellant was not granted due opportunity. In fact the Assessing Officer even issued the show-cause not....