9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1429/Del/2006 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2008 - MADAN B. LOKUR, BHAYANA S. L., JJ JUDGMENT The assessee is aggrieved by an order datedFebruary 24, 2006passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D" in IT(SS) A. No. 75/Del/2001 relevant for the block assessment periodApril 1, 1987toJanuary 16, 1998. Three issues have been raised by learned counsel for the assessee. It is firstly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lidity of the Notification datedNovember 6, 1979and, therefore, we have to proceed on the basis of its correctness. Under the circumstances, the first contention of learned counsel for the Revenue does not merit any serious consideration. 3. The second contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800 was duly explained by the assessee. It is sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing to suggest that she has understood the contents of the will or that its contents have been explained to her. 6. We do not find any fallacy in the view adopted by any of the Depart-mental authorities whereby the genuineness of the will has not been accepted. The third contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that the Revenue had wrongly included a sum of Rs. 30,000 as unexplai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
