TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessee for which initially though he admitted a difference of ₹ 50 lakhs in value, but later on during the course of assessment proceedings, he seems to have reduced that valuation by the admission letters dated 7 March 2005 and 17 February 2006, to the extent of ₹ 42 lakhs. The Tribunal has upheld the admissions only to the extent of ₹ 42 lakhs in the present case. We do not find any perversity in the said findings of the learned Tribunal based on the admission of the Assessee himself and therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Assessee and the same deserves to be dismissed. - Tax Case (Appeal) No.467 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2020 - THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessee to prove that there was no discrepancy in the books of accounts as well as in the stock. When the fact of discrepancy of recorded excess purchases has not been disputed then the Assessee cannot take advantage by pleading that the same will reduce the discrepancy in the stock. We find that when the Assessee has admitted an additional income of ₹ 42 lakhs, then, irrespective of the rival contentions of the parties, the same is liable to be added to the income of the Assessee. It is a case of unambiguous admission on the part of the Assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that an addition of ₹ 42 lakhs as admitted by the Assessee on account of unproved purchases is justified. The order of the learned Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f agreed to additions of ₹ 42 lakhs on account of unproved purchases of gold from various dealers, during the assessment period in question. 4. The learned counsel for the Assessee sought to urge before us that the said admission of the Assessee was not corroborated by any other material on record by the Assessing Authority and therefore, such an admission could not have resulted in the addition in the declared income. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that in fact, no question of law arises in the present case, much less substantial question of law, giving rise to the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
