It had held that the assess was in possession of the shares in question and had sold the said shares in course of ordinary transaction of sale of shares at stock exchange and if the broker did not file any evidence since the same were seized by the Revenue Department, there is no fault with the assessee. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the shares in question were allotted to the assessee in the public issue which were held in demat a/c of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. The shares were transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction.
If the books of account cannot be rejected, there is no question of not accepting the loss declared by the assessee. In a business, sometimes the business runs in profit and sometimes runs in loss. Merely because in a particular year, the loss was higher, that would not empower the Assessing Officer to reject the books of accounts, unless some specific defect is pointed out in its maintenance.
Here, the only question, which false for our determination, is as to whether the Additional Director had the authority under section 132 (1) of the Act to issue warrant of search and seizure. In view of the amendment brought by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, this point need not detain us much. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 has specifically inserted the words “Additional Director” in section 132 (1) of the Act with effect from 01.06.1994, besides other authorities.
The Income Tax Act was amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 15.12.1972 inserting Section 142A authorising the Assessing Officer for the purposes of making an assessment or reassessment under the Act, where an estimate of the value of any investment referred to in Section 69 or Section 69B or the value of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles referred to in Section 69A or Section 69B is required to be made, to refer the matter to Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him.
From the record, it appears that as on March 31, 2003, the figure of Rs. 1 crore was appearing in schedule IV, under the head unsecured loan” in the balance-sheet. In the earlier year it was appearing as 1. Unsecured loan Rs. 60 lakhs. 2. Share application money Rs. 40 lakhs. During the assessment year under consideration, the same was shown as Rs. 1 crore consolidated. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out as to what happened to Rs. 40 lakhs which were earlier appearing in the balance-sheet.
The assessee disclosed capital gain and claimed exemption under section 54F on the ground that entire sale proceeds were invested in construction of house property. In the original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, denied exemption on ground that construction of house property was complete before the date of transfer of shares.
In the present case the Tribunal found that the DVO’s report is based on his opinion, and not on any material, which could form the basis of reopening of the cases, and thus it can at best be treated as an information, which will not be sufficient material for recording ‘reason to believe’ to proceed in the matter. The opinion of the DVO, as to what would be reasonable percentage of architects fees and the supervision charges by the Directors, would not constitute tangible material for exercising powers of reopening the assessment.
Where the assessee claims that the value adopted or assessed for stamp duty purposes exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the relevant asset to a Valuation Officer in accordance with section 55A of the Income-tax Act.
It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two amounts have been deposited by the two partners in their capital account. The partners are income tax payee. They have explained the source as having received gift from various persons, who have also filed their Income Tax Returns and have been assessed accordingly. Merely because, the donors are weavers and they own only one loom would not make any difference. They have filed their Income Tax Returns and have also filed the return under the Gift Tax Act. They have paid the gift tax also. Assessment under the Gift Tax Act has also been made, though the assessments made were summary in nature. In the case of Anil Rice Mills (supra), this Court has held that the assessee can not be asked to prove the source of source or the origin of origin.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty was leviable as the appellant itself had surrendered the said amount representing the difference in the sundry creditors in order to buy peace. He, thus, submitted that there was no concealment of income so as to warrant levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
