TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has, on that finding, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer in regard to two of the properties purchased by the assessee. – held that there was no justification in the action of AO in treating the undisclosed investment or prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uggest that any income had not been disclosed or would not have been disclosed for tax purpose under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has, on that finding, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions on the basis of the report of the Valuation Officer in regard to two of the properties purchased by the assessee. The reasoning of the Tribunal's order proceeds thus: "As a res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence has been found during the course of search to establish that the assessee has paid more than the disclosed consideration in purchase of the properties or construction thereof or that it has received sale consideration more than disclosed in the regular accounts maintained by him or return of income filed in the regular course of business. In view of the facts and legal positions as afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... properties under consideration. Such a view stands fortified by the decision of the apex court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 1." The above is in tune with the decisions of this court in CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain [2001] 250 ITR 141 and CIT v. Sudhish Kumar [2005] 276 ITR 563. o substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal fails and is hereby d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
