TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- The cash belonged to the assessee's relative - The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard - The said affidavit which is self explanatory was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal and accordingly addition in question was deleted - Following Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam And Another Versus Controller Of Estate Duty [2001 (2) TMI 132 - SUPREME Court] - The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority - Decided in favour of assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 22 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2012 - Hon'ble Uma Nath Singh And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. For the Appellant : D. D. Chopra ORDER (Per Dr. Satish Chandra) This appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act has been filed against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earch without appreciating that the claim of the respondent made subsequent to the search that the said cash belonged to Dr.T.K.Rastogi was only an afterthought and the affidavit given by Dr. T.K.Rastogi in this regard could not have been relied upon as it was only a self serving statement nor supported by any documentary evidence. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.1999, a search was conducted at various residential and business premises of M/s Jugal Kishore Jewellers Group, wherein the assessee is a partner. During the course of search, several loose papers, cash and jewellery were found and seized. The A.O. in its order observed that there was certain undisclosed sales of the jewellery. When there was undisclosed sale cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Rs.) 89-90 428246 85650 90-91 891108 178222 91-92 784928 156985 92-93 926547 185309 93-94 1084430 216886 94-95 1477312 295462 95-96 2388238 477648 96-97 70227 140445 97-98 767408 153482 98-99 11258177 2251635 99-2000 (upto 07.07.99) 17434572 3486914 He reads out the assessment order, wherein it was mentioned that for affecting such large unaccounted sale, the assessee has not disclosed any initial capital investment. The A.O. noticed that during the year 1998-99, the assessee has shown unac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 9480.327 gm. gold. Thus, the value of this gold @ Rs.4045/- per 10 gm. gold comes to Rs.13,74,442/-. According to learned counsel, the A.O. also treated Rs.10,26,644/- as available with the assessee so the net addition had worked out Rs.3,47,798/-, by the CIT(A). Lastly, he submits that the correct calculation as per the method adopted by the A.O., the availability of funds with the assessee is much more than the amount of the addition made by the A.O. So, there is no occasion to make any addition. Lastly, he justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials available on record. From the arguments of the learned counsel for parties, it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decide the same de novo by providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee as per law. It is very painful to restore the matter back to the Tribunal in this very old matter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct the Tribunal to decide the same on merit within a period of three months after receiving a certified copy of this order and the assessee will co-operate at every stage. In view of above, when we restore the matter back to the Tribunal, then no answer to the substantial question of law can be given and it will be considered in an appropriate case. Regarding second substantial question of law, which relates to the addition of Rs.5,75,000/-, we heard the parties and gone through the material available on record. From ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
