9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kindly be reversed and the order of the AO may kindly be restored." 3. Ground No. 3 of the appeal is general in nature and requires no adjudication. Hence, this ground is rejected. 4. Ground No. 1 relates to the alleged error of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,15,000 under s. 69B of the IT Act, 1961. 5. It has been observed by the AO that as per seizure memo No. II, Lokayukt found 3 vehicles at the residence of the assessee during the course of raid. One Maruti van, one TVS Suzuki and one Bajaj Kawasaki. The Maruti van is valued at Rs. 1,62,000 in the seizure memo. It is also stated that this Maruti van is registered in the name of Shri Satish Ranjan Dubey, son of Shri N.K. Dubey, assessee. Similarly, TVS Suzuki valued at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the ITO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,15,000 against which feeling aggrieved the assessee (sic Revenue) is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Learned Departmental Representative has vehemently argued that no evidence has been given by the assessee, Dr. N.K. Dubey, regarding the possession of the vehicles by him. It is a search made by Lokayukt on 12th Sept., 1996. Cash flow was not filed by the assessee regularly. Whatever filed is after the search. 8. On the contrary, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has argued vehemently that all the three vehicles are no doubt found from the possession of the assessee but these all three vehicles are registered in the names of his sons who are independent taxpayers. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was considered as purchased by the assessee and an addition of Rs. 45,000 under s. 69B of the IT Act has been made against which feeling aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who has directed to delete the same against which feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. It has been held by the CIT(A) that on the facts and circumstances of the case the explanation of the assessee that the relevant gold and silver ornaments were received in the family at the time of his marriage does not appear to be unbelievable. Even if the affidavit of the father-in-law of the appellant shows some variation in the description of items, the fact of receipt of certain quantity of gold and silver ornaments at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
