9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961 by the Revenue, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "A" Bench, Chennai in I.T.A. No.1441/Mds/2004 dated 14.07.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount claimed by the assessee as received on account of sale of jewellery cannot be brought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in short) determining a total income at Rs.8,37,967/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.7,01,787/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The C.I.T.(A) allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Subsequently, the jewellery declared under VDI Scheme was sold to family members which resulted in capital loss of Rs.54,307/-. The amount of Rs.7,01,787/- was shown as receipt from family members on account of sale of gold and silver jewellery. It is seen from the records that the assessee had filed affidavits from the buyers and also the detailed description of purchases and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have given a finding that there is no material brought on record to suggest that the transaction was sham and hence it was held that the sum received on account of sale of jewellery could not be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Act. The concurrent findings given by both the authorities below are based on valid materials and evidence.&nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
