TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess of manufacturing of zippers, shoes, threads and other leather items through group concerns M/s. Kwality Zippers Pvt. Ltd.. In the said search incriminating materials and documents were found and were seized. Thereafter, proceedings for block assessment for the block period ending on 18th of November, 1998 was initiated. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment by the order dated 28th of November, 2000 and assessed the undisclosed income at Rs.2,02,38,122/-. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee. The Appellate Authority namely CIT (A) on 28th of September, 2001 allowed the appeal in part. Both the department and assessee preferred the appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being ITA No.762/Luc/01 and ITA No.712....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....added to the total income of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,80,000/- made by the AO on a/c of commission earned on sale of flats of Ganga Complex without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not discharge the onus lay upon him by not giving the documentary evidence i.e. names of persons/agents through whom the flats of Gagan Complex were sold out and therefore, the AO was justified in law holding that the assessee has sold out all the flats of the above project and earned the 20% profit and the same has not been disclosed. 3.1 Whether on the facts and in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant but it is difficult to agree with him. Looking to the fact that the assessee is a man of status and his undisclosed income was assessed at Rs.Rs.2,02,38,122/-, it cannot be said that the jewellery with regard to which the explanation has been accepted by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, is inadequate. The finding recorded by them are essentially findings of fact. Therefore, the question no.1 is not at all substantial question of law. So far as the question no.2 is concerned, it is also essentially a question of fact. The two authorities below have accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee and no illegality or perversity therein could be pointed out by....