TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02. 2. The Assessee is the proprietor of M/s Sona Jewellers and is also a Director in M/s Hira Jewellers. 3. On the morning of 2nd February, 2001, the Assessee was intercepted at Delhi Airport by the Intelligence Wing of the Income Tax Department and was found to be carrying Rs.18 lakhs in cash. His statement was recorded under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and he stated that approximately Rs.4 lakhs was available with his proprietary concern M/s Sona Jewellers. He stated that he was carrying Rs.18 lakhs in cash since he was going to Bombay for purchasing diamonds for M/s Sona Jewellers. 4. As a result of the above, the Income Tax Department conducted a search of his business and residential premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the officers of the Income Tax Department on 2nd February, 2001 to deny having made the bills. 8. On his part, the Assessee gave a statement on 11th February, 2001 that when he was intercepted at the Delhi Airport in the morning of 2nd February, 2001, he was carrying a letter from M/s Hira Jewellers to the effect that he was carrying cash belonging to M/s Hira Jewellers. The letter was also produced by the Assessee. 9. Upon a consideration of the material on record, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the statements made by Smt. Dhanlata Marwah, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and Smt. Shalini Bala on 2nd February, 2001 were true and correct and that their retraction was an afterthought. In fact, there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e produced that there was any availability of cash either with the Assessee or with M/s Hira Jewellers such that the amount could be explained in the hands of the Assessee when he was intercepted on the morning of 2nd February, 2001 at the Delhi Airport. 15. In view of all these factors, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer as well as by CIT (A). 16. We are of the opinion that in view of these concurrent findings on questions of fact, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The conclusions of fact cannot be said to be perverse in any manner but are based on material evidence that was available with the Revenue. 17. Learned counsel for the Assessee raised the contention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disregarding the contents of the second page of the statement, there is enough material to show that the Assessee was not able to explain the availability of cash with him in the morning of 2nd February, 2001. 19. Learned counsel for the Assessee finally contended that in so far as the availability of cash with M/s Hira Jewellers on the evening of 1st February, 2001 is concerned, that was accepted by the Assessing Officer of M/s Hira Jewellers. Such an argument was not raised by the Assessee at any time before any of the statutory authorities and in any case the Assessee was not able to show to the satisfaction of any of the authorities below that cash belonging to M/s Hira Jewellers was given to him and that he was carrying that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
