TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order of the Tribunal - - - - - Dated:- 7-1-2002 - Judge(s) : V. C. DAGA., J. P. DEVADHAR. JUDGMENT The above matter was called out for admission today. Parties were heard on admission. The petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, our reasons for rejection of petition based on the following fact are as under : Although as many as nine questions are sought to be raised as substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, in our opinion, the appellant is in fact seeking reappraisal of the evidence and there are no substantial questions of law arising in this appeal. The assessment order relevant for the purpose herein is the block period from April 1, 1986, to October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities that the diamonds in question belonged to the brokers, when in fact immediately after seizure on April 3, 1996, in the statement recorded by the FERA authorities on April 4, 1996, the assessee had categorically stated that the diamonds seized from the table top belonged to the brokers. It was submitted that when, the income-tax authorities themselves by their letter dated June 3, 1996, had informed the FERA authorities about their no objection for release of the seized diamonds, it could not be held that the seized diamonds were unexplained income of the assessee. It was submitted that since the inception, it was the case of the assessee that the seized diamonds belonged to the brokers who were present in the office of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. After hearing counsel for both sides, we are of the opinion that the authorities below were justified in holding that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it to establish that the seized diamonds did not belong to the assessee and consequently the addition of the value of the seized diamonds as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income-tax Act is justified. A perusal of the assessment order shows that after seizure of the diamonds from the office of the assessee on April 3, 1996, the FERA authorities had recorded the statement of the partner of the assessee on April 4, 1996. It is true that in the said statement, it was stated that the seized diamonds in boxes DD, EE, FF and GG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to be not living at those addressees at all. When confronted with these findings, the assessee sought to file the affidavit of the broker, Ashok V. Patel, dated July 3, 1997, and also affidavit of the said ten parties and requested that the statement of the ten persons to whom the said diamonds belonged be recorded. After recording the statements and analysing the statements of those ten persons, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the assessee has engineered the evidence in the form of such claims including that of Mr. Ashokbhai V. Patel. It was held that most of the parties, who claimed ownership of the diamonds were either men of no means or negligible means. It was seen that most of them had not even maintained books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized diamonds did not belong to him. It is the assessee who in a bid to establish the source insisted on recording the evidence of the ten parties who claimed to be the owners of the seized diamonds. Since the conduct, as well as evidence of the parties failed to prove the genuineness of the source and the confession thereof failed to inspire confidence in the authorities below, it was rightly held that the seized diamonds represented the unaccounted income of the assessee and the additions made were in accordance with law. Mr. Pardiwala drew our attention to the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570, wherein it was held that the word used in section 69A "may" and not "shall" and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had produced prima facie evidence to show that the seized diamonds belonged to the third parties, the initial burden cast upon the assessee can be said to be discharged and it was for the Revenue to establish to the contrary by sufficient and adequate material. In our opinion, in the present case, the Tribunal has given sufficient and cogent reasons for rejecting the claim of the assessee and holding that the assessee is the deemed owner of the seized diamonds and accordingly adding the same as deemed income of the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and the questions sought to be raised by the assessee cannot be said to be substantial question of law ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
