9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourse of search, cash in a sum of Rs.13,34,210/-, fixed deposits in various banks, jewellery and loose sheets containing information regarding construction expenses were found. A sum of Rs.13,00,000/- was seized. Notice under section 158-BC dated March 06,2003 was served on the appellant on July 15,2003. The appellant had filed return in Form 2B on August 14,2003 admitting an undisclosed income of Rs.4,31,797/-. The assessment was completed under section 158-BC read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on March 30,2004 on a total undisclosed income of Rs.42,05,370/- by making additions as follows : Rs. 1. cash and fixed deposits 18,01,112/- 2. Jewellery 13,13,520/- 3. Building reno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the additions made in a sum of Rs.18,01,112/- has held that during the search, cash in a sum of Rs.13,34,210/- was found and at the most, the assessing officer could make an addition to that extent only in the block assessment order. He further observed that having regard to the status of the appellant, it could be deemed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- could be treated as the cash available out of the earlier year savings. He further found that the explanation offered by the appellant that he received substantial cash gift from his patients including Dr.M.G.Ramachandran was not substantiated with any documentary evidence and thus out of the cash found during the course of search in a sum of Rs.13,34,210/- after giving credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rth days. The appellant, in his sworn statement, stated that about 50 sovereigns of gold jewellery were gifted to him and his family members by Smt. Janaki Ramachandran, that about 250 sovereigns were given to the appellant's wife at the time of her marriage and that some sovereigns were gifted to his children during the birth day celebration and concluded that there was no contemporaneous documentary evidence available regarding the quantum of jewellery received by the appellant's wife at the time of her marriage, the quantity of jewellery given by Smt. Janaki Ramachandran, the quantum of jewellery given by the appellant's brother-in-law and the foreign doctor Mor Jones. He has considered the sworn statement given by the appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rating the very same grounds, no material worth mentioning was placed. 11. From the totality of the case stated above and upon hearing the learned counsel, we find that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal, as an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can only be maintained on substantial question of law. In this case the following questions of law have been formulated: "(a) Addition of cash and fixed deposits : i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of cash and fixed deposits as undisclosed income? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
