TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act and recorded that the explanation was in contradiction to the notings in the seized document that these relate to Ratan Market Project containing names of shop holders, amount received from them, construction account with shop-wise details. It is, thus, apparent that when the Tribunal refers to the duty of the Assessing Officer to make further inquiries in respect of the shop owners, it is in this context. The Tribunal has also, as noticed hereinbefore, found that all the seized papers do not relate to Ratan Market Project. Thus, it is not possible to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal had omitted to consider other material. It is equally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer are required to be deleted ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are perverse or not ? 2. As facts are identical in all the years and the order of the Tribunal is consolidated, all these appeals have been heard together. 3. The dispute pertains to addition made by the Assessing Officer towards receipt of on-money as per details found in paragraph No. 3.6 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal has, for the reasons stated in paragraph No. 7 of its impugned order dated 12th November, 2003, come to the conclusion that the confessional statement made by one Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both by the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). That the Tribunal had placed undue emphasis on the affidavit of retraction and hence, the impugned order of the Tribunal, according to Mr. Naik, suffered from vice of perversity. 5. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal has observed that, in light of the retraction by Shri Pravinbhai Rupawala from the statement, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry in respect of shop owners. In the Assessment Order, in paragraph No. 6(1), while referring to the explanation tendered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has referred to one of the loose papers seized during the search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act and recorded that the explanation was in contrad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport that finding, even though the Court itself might have come to a different conclusion upon that evidence. [Reference CIT v. DLF United [2000] 243 ITR 8551 (SC)]. 8. Reliance by Mr. Naik on the Apex Court decision in case of K.T. Pavunny v. Assistant CCE [1997] (3) SCC 721, with special reference to paragraph No. 20 does not carry case of revenue any further. 9. In the circumstances, there being no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which has arrived at findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 10. The Registry is directed to keep a copy of this order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
