9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 7.1.2011, Annexure 'C' passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E' New Delhi in ITA No.2034/Del/2008 for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial questions of law:- a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in reversing the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and thereby upholding the addition of Rs.14,30,000/- made by the AO which was based on presumptions, assumptions, surmises and conjectures? b) Whether the addition was correct in law when the possession of jewellery and sale of the same was genuinely established by the assessee with the necessary documentary evidence? c) Whether the learned ITAT has placed selective reliance o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,30,000/- deposited in the bank account of the assessee as income out of unexplained sources and added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] alongwith application under Rule 46A (1)(b) (c ) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, "the Rules") for production of additional evidence. Vide order dated 10.3.2008, Annexure 'B', the CIT(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 7.1.2011, Annexure 'C', the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the appellant. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the sale of jewellery t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but in respect of other cases when he gave the certificate. To our mind, being a registered valuer, he is expected to keep a regular record in the shape of some register etc. wherein Sr.No. could be given. Either he was not maintaining the record or knowingly he did not produce it before the Assessing Officer. In the valuation report also, he has not given any serial number. Thus, this evidence is not of such a credence which can absolve an assessee from his duty to disclose the value of assets in the wealth tax returns in order to claim that he was possessing a particular asset. This document can be a corroborative piece of evidence but independently it is not sufficient to say that Walaya Ram was possessing diamond jewellery. The other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the assessee are concerned, we are of the opinion that these are not applicable on the facts of the present case. In the case of Lal Chand Bhagat Ram, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if finding of fact arrived at by the ITAT is on mere suspicion and conjecture then higher appellate forum would be entitled to interfere and set aside the same. In the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (supra), Hon'ble Mumbai High Court apart from dealing with other issues has considered a factor whether the Hon'ble High Court can direct the ITAT to make a reference on a question which was not sought by either parties. Thus, both the cases are not applicable on the given facts. The basic principle of appreciation of the facts and circumstances i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
