2009 (11) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he same was revised by filing a revised return on February 13, 1992, declaring the income as Rs. 21,18,823. Before filing the return of income, a search was conducted on the business premises on November 6, 1990, and several incriminating documents were seized. During the course of search, a statement was also recorded under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that cash of Rs. 16,85,900 was seized during the search as the unaccounted cash of the assessee and the other two members of the joint family, namely, his father and brother. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5,61,967 was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Similarly, during the course of search, a po....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal was correct in holding that the unaccounted gold jewellery found during search cannot be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as it was held to belong to the grand parents of the assessee by accepting the version of the assessee's father that his parents had sufficient jewellery by adducing proof showing photographs of his parents wearing jewellery which was accepted even though both of them were not identical. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the diamonds should be valued at an average rate when the value of each diamond would vary from one set of diamond to the other due to its size, colour and combination and the same yardstick should be made applicable to recording an average. 6. Learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee has rightly come to the conclusion that the cash seized was business income and that the assessee was able to prove that it was not unaccounted money, but it is accounted money based on the business turnover. He further contends that in so far as the value of diamonds is concerned, no substantial question of law arises as it is a question of fact which has been decided by the last fact finding authority. Therefore, there is no necessity to consider the last question of law that has been formulated by this court. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have to consider the two substantial questions of law one with regard to deletion of Rs. 5,61,967 in the hands of the assessee as business income and the other with regar....