9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e with the findings. Thus the findings of the Tribunal that the diamonds should be valued at an average was a finding of fact. (2) the Tribunal had accepted the loose slips which were seized during the course of search. But the Assessing Officer had come to the conclusion that the accounts were manipulated subsequent to the search. The same had not been properly considered by both the authorities. Therefore, where the cash seized from the assessee amounting to Rs. 5,61,967 was taxable or not had to be re examined by the Assessing Officer by giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere valued from an approved valuer. Based on the valuation report the same was also brought to tax. Similarly, certain jewels which were unaccounted were also brought into tax. 4. Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated March 25, 1994, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II. Bangalore, which came to be allowed on January 20, 1998. Being not satisfied with the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which came to be allowed on October 22, 2003, in toto. Being aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 5. This appeal is pertaining to the deletion of unaccounted income of Rs. 5,61,967, income relating to unaccounted jewellery an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appeal and, therefore, the same need not be considered by this court. Accordingly, we confine ourselves to consider question Nos. 1 and 3 only. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Seshachala, contends that the Tribunal without considering the order of assessment as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), has deleted the unaccounted cash of Rs. 5,61,967 from the order of assessment even though there was a clear admission during the course of search by Narasimhulu Chetty stating that the cash seized would be declared as income by all the three persons equally. Therefore, he contends that the consideration of the Tribunal based on the loose slips which were not accounted properly by the assessee even after providing reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the diamonds seized during the course of search is a question of fact and not a question of law. If the fact finding authority has given its finding, unless and until the Revenue is able to prove that the of evidence by the Tribunal is erroneous and illegal, this court cannot interfere with the said finding. Therefore, we are of the view that the last question has to be answered against the Revenue holding that the same is not a substantial question of law. 11. So far as the first question is concerned, after carefully considering the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not considered the entire case of the assessee properly. When the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
