9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th interest, if payable, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. - 7336/2008 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2011 - DIPAK MISRA C.J and SANJIV KHANN, JJ. Piyush Kaushik for the petitioner. Sanjeev Sabharwal for the respondent. JUDGEMENT This is an application for restoration of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7336/2008. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the Revenue Department has no objection. In view of the aforesaid, the application stands allowed and the writ petition is directed to be restored to file in its original number. The application is accordingly disposed of. W.P.(C) No. 7336/2008 As we have restored the matter, we have taken up the writ petition for hearing. 2. Heard Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d investment in jewellery, under Section 69A of the Act. The said addition was not on protective basis. The assessment order does not relate to and deal with cash of Rs. 1,11,300/-. We are not concerned with the cash of Rs. 1,11,300/-. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal and vide order dated 24th March, 1999, addition under Section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained jewellery was reduced to Rs.56,614/-. 7. On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the entire addition under Section 69A of the Act vide order dated 19th May, 2003. The said order has attained finality. 8. Petitioner accordingly approached Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central)-III vide her application dated 22-23rd April, 2008 for return of jew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a speaking order. In case any amount is refundable, the same shall be refunded and paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. Even with regard to jewellery, it is noticed that in the order under Section 132(5) of the Act dated 16th December, 1993, the jewellery has been treated as unexplained investment of the petitioner. In the assessment order passed on 31st December, 1998 under section 143(3) of the Act, addition of Rs.1,81,614/- was made on account of the jewellery. Protective assessment was not made. The respondent has not placed on record any order or document to show that the jewellery seized was treated as jewellery belonging to a third person. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had reduced the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
