9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the letter submitted by the assessee, which has been quoted by the Assessing Officer in his order, gives a complete and comprehensive picture and explain the material which is placed in support of his explanation in this regard. If the status of Gopal Sharma who admits himself to be author of the three loose sheets prepared at the instance of the seller of land Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit, the finding reached by the Tribunal cannot be held to be vitiated so as to give rise to a substantial question of law. Thus, the Tribunal accepted the submissions made by the assessee that the transaction does not belong to the assessee. It cannot be said that the finding is such to which no person of ordinary prudence will reach on the basis of material on record or that is founded on irrelevant consideration. The finding does not call for any interference under the domain of section 260A of the Act, which envisages only to consider and decide substantial questions of law arising out of the Tribunal s order and not to re-appreciate the evidence and reach the finding on its own by the High Court. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. - Rajesh Balia And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and his family members are entitled for further exemption of gold jewellery of 450 grams. In this order, it was held that the jewellery to the extent mentioned in the Board s Instructions dated 11-5-1994 should be considered as exempted as the family members were entitled to exemption of gold jewellery of 450 grams by excluding for each male member 100 grams and unmarried lady 250 grams which was not held to be undisclosed investment and its value was reduced as in addition to income in the block assessment period. However, the remaining 190.85 grams of jewellery and ornaments were held to be undisclosed investment and addition to that extent were retained as income from undisclosed sources. 7. On appeal, the Tribunal found the explanation submitted by the assessee about the acquisition of the jewellery of gold and silver found and seized from possession of the assessee and Smt. Tara Devi and wife Smt. Sarita Devi to be acceptable and deleted the entire addition. The two ladies have been Wealth-tax assessees up to Assessment year 1985-86 only and had declared the jewellery and ornaments up to that time in their W.T. Return. Later on, they received some gold ornaments on the occa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11-5-1994 and also in view of the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), we are of the opinion that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained jewellery is not valid and directed to be deleted and accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent before us contended that the circular to which reference has been made above, has nothing to do with the assessment of undisclosed investment found at the time of search. The circular only relates to exemption from seizure to some extent but does not exclude the jewellery found during the search of assessee from assessment, if otherwise the explanation about acquisition by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory. Learned counsel for the revenue relied on Part-IV of the circular dated 11-5-1994. 10. On the other hand, the petitioner in this connection contended that the basis of the circular for which exemption has been granted is accepted by the revenue as it was not aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) about the exclusion of gold jewellery in the hand of male members in the family and, therefore, to say that the circular is not applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO, the other evidence produced by the assessee could not have been accepted to sustain the explanation submitted by the assessee. 13. Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand urged that the finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence and does not give rise to a question of law at all, much less it can be said to be a substantial question of law which alone could be made subject-matter of the appeal under section 260A of the Act. It is further stated that the consistent explanation submitted in respect of three papers has been that these papers did not belong to the assessee but they relate to the transaction made by maternal aunt Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit in connection with some agricultural land. According to the assessee, the entry in the three loose papers were not in his hand nor it belongs to him but belongs to Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit. She had sold her agricultural land at Kishangarh through Shri Ram Karan Joshi. The land had been received by Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit in succession. The said Shri Ram Karan Joshi used to give money at Jaipur as per Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit s directions. Thus, statement of account had been got prepared later on. It was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh working papers and are not in the handwriting of the assessee or any of his family members. The assessee explained the contents of the papers and identified the owners and adduced the relevant evidences before the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also filed some of the sale deeds in support of the transactions mentioned in the said loose papers. It was also submitted by the ld. A.R. that the statement of Shri Gopal Sharma was recorded by the Assessing Officer in which he has confirmed that the transactions noted in these papers are the sale transactions of the lands sold by Smt. Chandra Kanta Pandit and are in his handwriting. The ld. A.R. further submitted that an affidavit was also filed by the assessee in this regard, supported by necessary documentary evidence and also produced Shri Gopal Sharma, who has confirmed the version of the assessee. He, therefore, submits that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. The ld. A.R. also cited various decisions. 18. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the findings of the CIT(A). 19. We have carefully considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
