TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A. No. 75/Del/2001 relevant for the block assessment periodApril 1, 1987toJanuary 16, 1998. Three issues have been raised by learned counsel for the assessee. It is firstly contended that the warrant of authorization drawn up in favour of the Additional Director of Income-tax was not valid and, therefore, the search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was itself ille....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s consideration. 3. The second contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800 was duly explained by the assessee. It is submitted that out of the jewellery seized, 500 gms. were received by the wife of the assessee as a result of a will datedMay 25, 1993made by the grandmother of the wife of the assessee. 4. None of the authorities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereby the genuineness of the will has not been accepted. The third contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that the Revenue had wrongly included a sum of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income of the wife of the assessee on account of deposits in the Food Corporation ofIndiaand the Unit Trust of India. 7. It has been shown to us that the assessee was married for more than 10 years and it i....