ORDER
A. SA TYANARA YANA, VICE PRESMENT:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the assessment order dt. 30th Sept., 1996 passed under s. 158BC r/w s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for the block asst. yrs. 11986-87 to 1996-97.
2. According to the AO who passed the assessment order, the assessee is having income from house property, income from lodge and income from other sources. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on 21st Sept., 1995. Notice under s. 158BC was issued on 7th Feb., 1996. The assessee expired on 26th Feb., 1996. Subsequently the assessee's father also expired. Ultimately the return was filed on 29th Aug., 1996, admitting an undisclosed income of Rs. 4,87,310. K.R. Palaniapan, son-in-law of the deceased assessee appeared with the assessee's counsel Ramamurthi, ITP, Pudukottai.
3. The assessee claimed his status as 'non-resident' for the block assessment.
He was requested to produce evidence in support of his claim. The assessee by letter dt. 19th Sept., 1996, replied that his passport was lost in Changi airport, Singapore, on 18th Oct., 1995, and the same was reported to the Singapore police authorities on 20th Oct., 1995. He filed a copy of the complaint given to the Singapore police authorities. He filed the following documents to support his claim that he is a 'non-resident' and also to prove that he had sufficient income at Singapore :
(i) Certificate from Rama & Co., certified Public Accountants, to the effect that the assessee has been assessed to tax in Singapore for the last 20 years in the status of 'resident' at Singapore.
(ii) The assessee had stated that being a 'Resident' in Singapore, he has to be physically present for more than 183 days in Singapore. He has filed an extract from Singapore taxation.
(iii) He filed a copy of the I.D. card from Singapore with the claim that it will be issued only to permanent residents at Singapore.
(iv) Copies of assessment orders for the asst. yrs. 1986 to 1996 showing the incomes assessed in Singapore Dollars were filed.
(v) He claimed that he was running a restaurant called 'Muthu Restaurant' till July, 1994 and that in the year 1994 he sold the restaurant to Muthu's Curry Restaurant (P) Ltd. for a consideration of 7,00,000 Singapore Dollars.
The AO stated that the status of the assessee cannot be treated as 'nonresident' as the assessee has filed only circumstantial evidence to support that he has been doing business at Singapore and that he was also assessed to tax, but in the absence of any documentary evidence, licence, passport, air ticket, visa, immigration, etc. the status cannot be treated as 'non-resident'. However, in view of the fact that he was assessed to tax in India in the status of 'non-residefit' upto the asst. yr. 1992-93, his status was treated as 'resident but not ordinarily resident' for the asst. yr. 1993-94 onwards.
4. During the course of hearing on 25th Sept., 1996, the assessee filed statements showing overall investments and overall sources. These details were given by the AO in Annexure-III to the assessment order. The investments were shown at Rs. 3,96,60,499 (wrongly taken by the assessee at Rs. 3,96,10,499).
5. In the assessment order, the AO had stated that no credit is being given for the foreign remittances by way of deemed drafts by observing as under :
'11. Perusal of bank account in India in which the remittance have been credited also indicate that all the remittances are not through bank-to-bank transactions. Certain deposits are in the form of demand draft. Sources from which and the country in which these demand drafts were purchased have not been indicated. No ostensible source upto 23rd July, 1994 (on which date the proprietary concern of the assessee at Singapore was sold to in private limited company) has been brought to my knowledge to explain the acquisition of these demand drafts.
It is, therefore, held that these demand drafts were purchased from out of unexplained sources.
11.1 As there is no direct source to explain the purchase of these demand drafts it cannot be said that these were acquired out of any income arising outside India. Therefore no credit can be given in respect of amount credited in the bank account in the form of demand draft to explain the investments, since it cannot be treated as disclosed income either in India or outside India for the purpose of assessment under Chapter XIV-13 of the IT Act.
11.2 The assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 was remitted through banks during the period of immunity as per Remittances of Foreign Exchange etc. Act of 1991. The assessee's status is not 'resident and ordinarily resident' and further the remittance has not been supported by the declaration before the banker to whom such remittance was claimed to have been made. In these circumstances the assessee's claim for immunity is not acceptable for such remittance.
12. The other nature of remittances of transfer of funds from foreign branch at Singapore to Indian branch through the Bank and as these remittances are well within the available taxed funds at Singapore which could be available for remittances after other probable outgoings, credit is given to the limited extent of amounts transferred from bank-to-bank.
13. Complete break-up of remittance claimed on account of demand draft and transfer remittances as well as total remittances claimed are given in Annexure ~ IV(i) and Annexure-IV(ii).
14. Out of total remittances claimed credit is being given only to the extent of Rs. 1,55,02,600, as below, being the remittances received on transfer and no credit is being given for the amount received by way of demand drafts :
Bank-to-bank Rernittances
Rs.
Remittances received upto 23rd July, 1994
48,50,000
Remittances received from 24th July, 1994 to 21st Sept., 1996
1,06.52,600
1,55,02.600'
6. The assessee has not offered any income from property at 14, Gemini Person Complex, Madras, on the ground that it was lying vacant throughout year in the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. But in the assessment order the AO took Rs. 13,548 as income from this property for each of the asst. yrs. 199394, 1994-95 and 1995-96.
7. The assessee has purchased a property at 94, Radhakrishna Road, Madras, during the asst. yr. 1993-94. However, he has not offered any income from this property on the ground that it is self-occupied. The assessee already claimed allowance for self-occupation in respect of the property at Pudukottai and hence eligible allowance is in respect of only one property. Therefore, an estimated income of Rs. 12,000 each was assessed as income from this property in the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. In Annexure-I to the assessment order, the AO stated that he had already discussed in detail about the remittances claimed from abroad, that wherever the transactions were through bank-to-bank they had been considered, that however receipt by way of demand drafts stood on a different footing in the sense that the sources from which such drafts have been purchased has not been explained properly, that it could as well have emanated from the sources in India and brought by way of such drafts and that since the assessee has failed in his onus to prove the source from which such demand drafts have been purchased, no credit can be given. He further held that any asset acquired in India is to be explained with reference to known source, that the investments/deposits in India will have to be treated as unexplained investments and deposits which have to be treated as deemed income under ss. 69, 69A and 69B of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, he held that all the remittances cannot be treated as coming out of sources of income outside India to explain the acquisition of assets in India. Ultimately he stated that 'in a nutshell the money transferred by way of drafts is disregarded'. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
8. The assessee's counsel filed 4 paper-books containing 70, 21, 120 and 13 pages respectively. The arguments of the assessee's counsel were to the following effect : p. 26 of paper-book No. I shows the certificate of Rama & Co., certified Public Accountants, Singapore, dt. 23rd Sept., 1996. In that they have certified that the assessee was holding Singapore permanent resident status for more than 20 years and that based on his stay in Singapore, the local tax authorities treated the assessee as a resident for tax purposes and assessed accordingly. The assessed incomes in Singapore Dollars for the asst. yrs. 1986 to 1996 were given. The assessment orders are given from pp. 27 to 47 of the paper-book No. I. From the notice of assessment for the asst. yr. 1985 (page 27) it will be seen that personal reliefs were granted by the IT Department, Singapore, to the assessee. Such personal reliefs are allowable only to the residents. At p- 70 of the paper-book No. I an extract is given from p. 250 of Singapore Taxation laws to substantiate the assertion that personal reliefs are given only to the residents. In the assessment order the AO has taken the assessee's status as 'non-resident' for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1992-93 and as
'Resident but not ordinarily resident' for the asst. yrs. 1993-94 to 1996-97. Sec. 5(1) of the IT Act, 1961 lays down the scope of total income of 'residents and ordinarily residents' and 'residents but not ordinarily residents', The 'residents but not ordinarily Residents' are chargeable to tax on income which accrues or arises to him outside India only in case if it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in India. This is as per the proviso to s. 5(1) of the Act. In the present case, the assessee derived business income from a restaurant called 'Muthu's Restaurant'. As the busines's of 'Muthu's
Restaurant' was not controlled in India, the said business income is not assessable under the IT Act, 1961. Only local income-income from property is assessable in India. At pp. 52 to 56 of paper-book No. I assessee's NonResident External Savings Bank Account No. 2517 in United Commercial Bank, Pudukottai branch, is given. In the said bank account, credits by way of transfers were accepted; credits by way of demand drafts were not accepted. At pp. 24 and 25 of paper-book No. I, Annexure-IV of the assessment order is given. It shows the detailed break-up of remittances by way of transfers from bank-to-bank and by way of demand drafts. The total amount of demand drafts in p. 24 comes to Rs. 1, 06,15,500. The total shown at p. 24 at Rs. 1, 18,45,178 by the AO is not correct. It should be taken at Rs. 1,06,15,500. Page 63 shows the N.R.E. Account No. 86. The total of demand drafts in p. 25 comes to Rs. 10,00,000 in Punjab National Bank, Mylapore, Madras. In that account there is a credit of Rs. 5,00,000 by way of demand draft on 3rd March, 1993. It was not considered by the AO. In p. 24, demand draft in the name of Kanthimathi was taken at Rs. 14,00,000. The correct figure is Rs. 15,00,000. Thus the total of the demand drafts comes to Rs. 1,22,15,500. The AO denied credit in respect of the amounts covered by the demand drafts on the ground that the sources from which and the country in which these demand drafts were purchased have not been indicated. This is not correct. Whatever information was asked by the AO was furnished to him by the assessee's legal heir. Photocopies of certain demand drafts were given at pp. 65 to 68 of the paper-book No. 1. They clearly show the place at which the demand drafts were purchased. All these demand drafts show the place as UCO Bank, Serangoon branch, Singapore. At p. 69 the certificate from UCO Bank, Pudukottai, is given. In the said certificate, the bank has given the details of the DDs/TTs issued by UCO Bank, Serangoon branch, Singapore, which were credited in the names of the assessee and his family members. Even on 19th Aug., 1987, long before the search on 21st Sept., 1995, the IT Department has accepted the drafts originating from UCO Bank, Serangoon Branch, Singapore. Item Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the receipt given at p. 64 of paper-book No. I issued by the Chief CIT, Madras, can be noted. The said amount comes to Rs. 20,65,500. The assessee need not prove that the amounts covered by the demand drafts was subjected to tax in Singapore. Suffice to say that the demand drafts originated from Singapore. Assessee proved that the demand drafts originated from Singapore. The source for the said demand drafts need not be proved. Please refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal vs . CIT : [1963]49ITR273(Mad) . In the present case, the AO asked for explanation for credits in the bank accounts of the assessee. The assessee proved the origin and the source the demand drafts and bank transfers which were credited in the bank accounts. The Hon'ble Madras High Court held that after the lapse of ten years the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of his capital contribution but the origin of origin and the source of source as well. Please see pp. 770 and 771 from the Commentary in Sampath Iyengar's Book 'Law of Income-tax' (9th Edn.): Receipt should be as income. If the money had already been received abroad by the non-resident ('residents but not ordinarily residents' also) as income as he later transmitted the same into India, it will not be received as income in India. By receipt of income is meant a primary receipt. Any remittance to the assessee in India out of income already received or accrued abroad in an earlier accounting year can only be charged to income-tax on remittance basis under s. 4(1)(b)(iii) of the Indian IT Act, 1922. This provision has not been repeated by the IT Act, 1961. It means that there is no provision in the IT Act, 1961 to bring to tax such remittances. Income cannot be received twice. In the cases of 11 non-residents' and 'residents but not ordinarily residents', their foreign income is not assessable unless it is actually received in India. Receipt by itself is not sufficient to attract tax; it is only receipt as 'income' which can attract tax [CIT vs . Agarwal & Co. : [1952]21ITR293(Bom) . Every receipt by the assessee is not necessarily income in his hands. It is only when it bears the character of income at the time when it reaches the hands of the assessee that it becomes exigible to tax [CIT vs . Tollygunge Club Ltd. : [1977]107ITR776(SC) ]. The receipt of the impugned demand drafts is capital receipt. They were already received as income in Singapore. Sec. 5 is charging section. It brings to charge only revenue receipts and not capital receipts. Capital receipts are outside the scope of the charging section. If a non-resident had already received monies outside India (in an earlier year or during the previous year) as income and he was transferring the funds to India in the accounting year, such monies will not count as income in the eye of law. Please see the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Ltd. vs . CIT : [1953]23ITR230(SC) . This was definitely established by the Privy Council in Pondicherry Railway Co. vs . CIT and CIT vs. Diwan Bahadur S.L. Mathias (1939) 7 ITR 48. There is an agreement between the Govt. of Republic of India and the Govt. of Republic of Singapore for the avoidance of double taxation vide Notification dt. 8th Aug., 1994 at pp. 104 to 120 of paper-book No. EI. The Hontle Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs . Davy Ashmore India Ltd. : [1991]190ITR626(Cal) held that the double taxation avoidance agreement must prevail over the provisions of the IT Act. The judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs . VR. S.R.M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Paper Coipn. Ltd. (1994) 77 Taxinan 450 (Cal) are to the same effect. Sec. 9(2) was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with retrospective effect from lst April, 1972. The s. 90(2) envisages a situation where the Central Govt. has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under s. 90(1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation. In such a situation, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. Hence the amount covered by the impugned demand drafts should be given credit. Ground No. 24 fails. Regarding ground Nos. 25 and 26 a direction may be given to the AO to verify these claims and deal with them according to law.
9. The Departmental Representative filed a paper-book of 20 pages and urged to the following effect : According to s. 158B13(3), the burden of proving to the satisfactio4 of the AO that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee before the commencement of search shall be on the assessee. Credit was not given for demand drafts as the source for the said demand drafts was not proved. Without knowing the source for the demand drafts, how can the AO say whether income is derived from a business controlled in India? Hence the proviso to s. 5(1) cannot be applied. Attention is invited to the last para of Annexure-I to the assessment order where it is stated as under:
'All remittances cannot be taken as explained sources unless remittances are out of known and explained source of income outside India, Any asset acquired in India has to be explained with reference to known source, the investments/deposits in India will have to be treated as deemed income under s. 69, 69A and 69B of the Act. Therefore, all the remittances cannot be treated as coming out of source of income outside India to explain acquisition of asset in India. '
Secs. 69, 69A and 69B of the IT Act, 1961, are deeming provisions. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs . CIT (1995) 125 CTR 124 : : [1995]214ITR801(SC) , the burden of proof is on the assessee to prove that the amounts credited in the accounts did not represent income. This judgment rendered under s. 68, equally applies to the other sections viz., ss. 69 and 69A and 69B. The case of S. Hastimal (supra) is distinguishable on facts.
In the present case, the first source is also not proved as the source of demand drafts is not proved. In the case of S. Hastimal (supra) that assessee could not prove that G was V's agent. In the present case, a lot of time has not lapsed. The assessment year involved in the case of S. Hastimal (supra) was 1948-49. Such deeming provisions as ss. 69, 69A and 69B were not there in the Indian IT Act, 1922. Hence this case law is not applicable. Source has to be explained before deciding whether a receipt falls under the category of capital receipt or revenue receipt. Hence the case of Keshav Mills Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Double taxation avoidance agreement will come into picture when there is a dispute between the two countries for purposes of taxation. The Singapore Govt. has not taxed this disputed income (agitated by' the assessee now in appeal). Hence the case of CIT vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (supra) does not apply. The case of CIT vs. VR. S.R.M. Firm (supra) is also distinguishable.
10. In reply, the assessee's counsel stated to the following effect : the legal representative of the assessee conclusively established that the demand drafts originated in Singapore. The deceased assessee was having a lucrative business there. It is not for the Revenue to call upon the assessee to prove whether the remittances were taxed in Singapore, because of the territorial limits. Money has been remitted through authorised channels. The business was controlled in Singapore. Dead man's explanation is now being sought. To the extent possible his legal heir explained. As per s. 5 remittances can only be taxed if they are in the form of income only.
11. We have considered the rival submissions, case law cited and perused the papers filed before us. Though the status determined by the AO was questioned in the written grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal, at the time of hearing the assessee's counsel argued accepting the status determined by the AO that the assessee's status will be that of 'non resident' upto the asst. yr. 1992-93 and that of 'resident but not ordinarily resident' for the asst. yr. 1993-94 onwards. Accordingly, ground Nos. 3 to 9 in the written grounds of appeal are held against the assessee.
12. The main grievance of the assessee is against the non-giving credit for the demand drafts sent from Singapore. The details of these demand drafts are given in the paper-book No. 11 filed by the assessee. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,22,15,500. Out of the same, Rs. 63,15,500 represents the demand drafts sent when the assessee's status was taken as 'non residenC upto asst. yr. 1992-93. Rs. 59,00,000 represents the demand drafts sent when the assessee's status was taken as that of 'resident but not ordinarily resident' for the asst. yr. 1993-94 onwards. Money remitted by way of demand drafts from Singapore was disregarded by the AO as a result of his in decision and suspicion. His indecision and suspicion are borne from the following observations :
(i) It is seen that remittances are not, repeat not, out of income subjected to tax at Singapore (see para 9 of the assessment order).
(ii) Sources from which and the country in which these demand drafts were purchased have not been indicated. No ostensible source upto 23rd July, 1994 (on which date the proprietary concern of the assessee at Singapore was sold to private limited company) has been brought to my knowledge to explain the acquisition of these demand drafts. It is therefore held that these demand drafts were purchased from out of unexplained sources. (See para 11 of the assessment order).
(iii) As there is no direct source to explain the purchase of these demand drafts, it cannot be said that these were acquired out of any income arising outside India. Therefore, no credit can be given in respect of the amount credited in the bank account in the form of demand drafts to explain the investments, since it
cannot be treated as disclosed income either in India or outside India for the purpose of assessment under Chapter XW-B of the IT Act (See para 11. 1 of assessment order).
(M However, the receipt by way of demand drafts stand on a different footing in the sense that the source from which such drafts have been purchased has not been explained properly. It could as well have emanated from the source in India and brought by way of such drafts. Since the assessee has failed in his onus to prove the source from which such demand drafts have been purchased, no credit can be given. (See para 3 of Annexure-I to the assessment order).
(v) Any asset acquired in India has to be explained with reference to known source, the investments/deposits in India will have to be treated as unexplained investment and deposit, which has to be treated as deemed income under ss. 69, 69A and 69B of the Act. Therefore, all the remittances cannot be treated as coming out of source outside India to explain acquisition of asset in India. (See para 6 of Annexure I to the assessment order).
13. The AO has mentioned that the demand drafts transmitted from Singapore have to be treated as unexplained investments and deposits which have to be treated as deemed income under ss. 69, 69A and 69B of the IT Act, 1961. This kind of omnibus statement is not permitted. He should have pinpointed the particular section-Sec. 69 or s. 69A or s. 69B-and given his detailed reasons as to how the remittances from Singapore by way of demand drafts can be brought under any of those sections. The AO treated these remittances from
Singapore in the form of demand drafts as 'any asset acquired in India'. This is a wrong impression. The investment in the form of demand draft had taken place in Singapore when money was tendered in the bank and draft was purchased. So, ss. 69, 69A and 69B are not applicable to the assessee.
14. Even assuming, for argument sake, that ss. 69, 69A and 69B can be invoked
for bringing to tax the remittances from Singapore by way of demand drafts, the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and Singapore and s. 90(2) of the IT Act, 1961 come to the rescue of the assessee. Sec. 90(2) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1972, reads as under :
'90. Agreement Mth foreign countries.
(2) Where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-s. (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions ~of this Act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee.
Reference may be made to the judgments in the case of CIT vs . Visakhapatnam Port 7Yust : [1983]144ITR146(AP) and CIT vs . VR. S.R.M. Firm : [1994]208ITR400(Mad) . The assessee's counsel contended that the charging section viz., s. 5 is to be considered as it was beneficial to the assessee. According to s. 5 the constituents of chargeable total income are as under.
Non-resident
Resident but not ordinaiy resident
(a) Income received or deemed to be received in India by or on behalf of the assessee.
(a) Income received or deemed to be received in India by or on behalf of the assessee.
(b) Income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India.
(b) Income which accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India.
(c) Income which accrues or arises to him outside India, only in case if it is derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up India.
The impugned demand drafts cannot be brought in the above categories. The crediting of the demand drafts in the bank account of the assessee cannot be treated as receipt of income in India. The money had already been received abroad by the assessee as a non-resident/resident but not ordinarily resident as income but later transmitted to India. Hence it will not be received as income in India. For this pioposition reliance is made on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshav MiRs Ltd. vs. = (supra). Income cannot be received twice. Receipt by itself is not sufficient to attract tax; it is only receipt as 'income' which can attract tax (CIT2 vs. Agarwal & Co. (supra). Every receipt by the assessee is not necessarily income in his hands. It is only when it bears the character of income at the time when it reaches the hands of the assessee that it becomes exigible to tax (CIT vs, Tollygunge Club Ltd. (supra). The onus to prove that the amount received represented a revenue receipt is on the IT Department, as held by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Baghapurana Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. vs . CIT , which followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bonibay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P) Ltd. vs . CIT : [1965]56ITR52(SC) . In the present case, the Deparment failed to discharge the onus placed on it.
15. The AO is not at all justified in stating that the assessee has failed in his onus to prove the source from which the demand drafts have been purchased. It must be remembered that the search in the premises of the assessee took place on 21st Sept., 1995, that notice under s. 158BC was issued on 7th Feb., 1996 and that the assessee S. Ayyakannu, expired on 26th Feb., 1996. The assessee's father also subsequently passed away. The return under s. 158BC was filed by the legal representative of the assessee viz., the wife and that the assessee's son-in-law K.R. Palaniapan appeared before the AO with all the details on which he could lay his hands. The assessment years involved are 1986~87 to 1996-97. The impugned items are remittances from Singapore by way of demand drafts credited in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee's representative explained that the credits in the bank account were because of the demand drafts sent from Singapore. That means, the source for the credit in the bank account has been explained. But the AO is asking for the source to the demand drafts. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal (supra) held that after a lapse of a decade, the assessee should not be placed upon the rack and called upon to explain not merely the origin and source of a capital contribution but the origin of origin and source of source as well. The High Court further held that the difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a transaction which took place before a decade has to be borne in mind by the Department and should under no circumstances be underestimated or taken advantage of by them. In the present case, the demand drafts were taken in the years 1987, 1988, 1990, etc. The assessee who was aware of the transactions was no more when the return was filed and when the assessment proceedings took place. This important factor should not be lost sight of by the taxing authorities.
16. On these facts and circumstances, we hold that the AO should give credit for the demand drafts of Rs. 1,22,15,500.
17. The assessee's counsel himself admitted that ground No. 24 fails. Accordingly this ground is rejected.
18. In ground No. 25 the assessee contended that the AO erred in not giving credit to the tax of Rs. 38,030 that had been deducted at source from income from lottery. In ground No. 26 the assessee contended that the AO erred in not giving credit to the advance tax of Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 2,22,386 that had been paid along with the Form No. 2-B return. The AO is directed to look into these issues and decide them according to law after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.