9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law - appeal is dismissed. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1435 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 4-6-2018 - M. S. Sanklecha And Sandeep K. Shinde, JJ. Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the appellant Mr. Aditya Aajgaonkar i/b Ajay R. Singh for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 31st October, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appeal relates to assessment for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 16th July, 1999. 2. The High Court Website indicated that this appeal has been admitted. However, on examination, the Registry found that the record doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration. Mr. Chhotaray tenders the following questions of law for our consideration : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 36,90,153/made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment in jewellery under section 69A of the Act? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Tribunal is perverse as no reasonable person, acting judicially and properly instructed in the relevant law, could arrive at such a finding on the evidence on record? 6. Briefly, the facts leading to the present appeal are that on 16th July, 1999 the respondent assessee wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be treated as unexplained jewellery of the respondent assessee and the provisions of Section 69A of the Act was invoked. 8. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Before the CIT(A), the respondent placed reliance upon the following evidences to establish that the seized jewellery did not belong to him : (1) Bill of Nakoda Travels and Tours dated 14.7.1999 against Pravin Jewellers, claimed by assessee as his employer, towards air ticket from Mumbai to Cochin by flight of 15th July, 1999 (page no.36 of the paper book). (2) Issue voucher of Pravin Jewellers in favour of assessee in respect of gold jewellery (page no.38 and 39 of the paper book) (3) Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29th July, 1999 to the Dy. Director of Investigation of IncomeTax Department, where the return of income filed by the respondent assessee as well as by his employer M/s. Pravin Jewellers, Mumbai and copy of the stock book of his employer was enclosed. Thus, the addition made under Section 69A of the Act was deleted by order dated 11th October, 2001 of the CIT(A). 9. Being aggrieved with the order dated 11th October, 2011 of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal to the Tribunal. On examination of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer had made the addition merely on suspicion and on having ignored the factual evidence on record. Therefore, not sustainable. Thus, the impugned order dated 31st Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t certain about the ownership of the seized jewellery. Besides, the entire basis of the Revenue's case is the statement made on the date of the seizure. The voluminous evidence filed by the respondent during the course of the assessment proceedings has been completely ignored on the ground that the same was not produced when the seizure was made. There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced only at the time when the seizure has been made and not during the assessment proceedings. Besides, the reference to the newspaper report in the impugned order was not the basis of the decision, it was referred to as it corroborated the respondent's claim that documents given to the Police at the time of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
