https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176808 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,44,22,090 for seized gold but deleted other additions made by the assessing officer related to unexplained investments. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's approval under section 158BG does not require granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before approval. The appellant failed to prove ownership of the seized gold, leading to the sustained addition. The Tribunal considered the house renovation investment explained from undisclosed income, leading to the deletion of that addition. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176808 The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,44,22,090 for seized gold but deleted other additions made by the assessing officer related to unexplained investments. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's approval under section 158BG does not require granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before approval. The appellant failed to prove ownership of the seized gold, leading to the sustained addition. The Tribunal considered the house renovation investment explained from undisclosed income, leading to the deletion of that addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176808