9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to Block Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1999-2000 raising following substantial questions of law:- "(1) whether the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the claim of the appellant on the basis of document paper No. B-31, (page 60) when the same claim of Sri Ravindra Kishore i.e. brother of the appellant and the other partner of the firm in respect of the same search and seizure operations for block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act had been accepted by the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 5.12.2008 in the connected case i.e. IT (SS)A No. 168 (Del)/ 2003? (2) whether in view of the findings recorded in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the claim of the assessee appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered by the assessee and his brother in this regard was to the effect that on 02.12.1993 the assessee had solemnized the marriage of his son, Manoj whereas on 12.12.1993 his brother, Ravindra Kishore had solemnized the marriage of his son, Salil. Then, it was stated that the assessee and his brother had allowed certain jewellery (forming part of the stock in trade of the partnership firm, M/s Kishore Jewellers), to be used by the ladies of the house during the marriage ceremony for the purpose of display. The same was then stated to have been restored to the stock of the aforesaid partnership firm. A copy of the document No.B-31 recording such transaction had been annexed with the paper book filed by the assessee. The aforesaid explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay purpose and, thereafter, it was returned back to the firm. By an earlier order, the revenue had been directed to file a report clearly stating whether any jewellery had been seized from the assessee during the course of the search proceedings. An affidavit of Sri Ashish Mohan, Income Tax Inspector attached to the office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Moradabad has been filed in response to the earlier order wherein it has been categorically stated that no part of the jewellery weighing 302.450 Grams (as mentioned in the order of the Tribunal) had been seized from the assessee during the search proceedings. Consequence of the aforesaid averment made in the remand report supported by a supplementary affidavit is that the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
