2011 (9) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... proposed in the Appeal: (i) Whether the ITAT could uphold the deletion of Rs. 2,52,021/- unexplained investment in Jewellery? (ii) Whether the ITAT could uphold the deletion of Rs. 2,17,100/- and Rs. 7,70,000/- on account of unexplained investment in house property at Pitampura and godown at Bakoli respectively?   2. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the Respon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... garding the possession of jewellery and submitted that on the basis of the Board's instructions the jewellery of such a low value is not to be seized. Accepting this contention the CIT(A) deleted the said addition which is confirmed by the ITAT.   3. Learned Counsel for the Revenue could not point out as to how the aforesaid order was not in conformity with the Board's Instruction No. 288/63 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X