TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 54,100 in the hands of the assessee-firm is wrong and perverse based on irrelevant material and without consideration of relevant and material evidence ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order sustaining the addition of Rs. 82,400 in the hands of the assessee-firm is wrong and perverse based on irrelevant material and inadmissible evidence and without consideration of relevant and material evidence ? (c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in sustaining the additions of Rs. 54, 100 and Rs. 82,400 made by the Department by taking recourse to the provisions of section 69 and section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without the Department having discharged the onus which lay on it to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) and (e). He states that questions as stated in paragraph 19(b), (c) and (d) are nothing but elaboration of question in para 19(e). First we take up the question as stated in paragraph 19(a). There was a search and seizure operation at the business premises of the assessee on August 20, 1976, and there certain articles relating to pawn business were discovered, against which the pawn business to the extent of Rs. 54,100 was carried on. The assessee was called upon to explain the investment of Rs. 54,100 in the pawn business. Then the assessee explained that pawn business to the extent of Rs. 54,100 had been carried on by one Shrimathi Janki Devi, daughter of Shrimati Bhanu Devi. Shrimati Janki Devi is the wife of Malti Prasad, one of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isen. We do not find any force in the submission of Sri Gupta. .The main question was whether the pawn business was carried on by Shrimati Janki Devi. On this question, the statements of the scribe and the attesting witness to the will throw no light. Consequently, the omission on the part of the Tribunal to take into consideration, the statements of the scribe and the attesting witness cannot be said to be a material omission and that does not give rise to any question of law so far as addition of Rs. 54,100 is concerned. So far as the question as stated in paragraph 19(e) is concerned, it is patently a question of fact and no direction can be given to the Tribunal to refer the same to this court under section 256(2) of the Act. Weight o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
