TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ardhan Verma under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on 04.30.2002. It is gathered that during the search following items were found and seized by the Department from the searched premises: (i) loose papers and documents (diary, etc.) containing in Annexure A-1 to A-9; (ii) cash amounting to Rs.2,03,550/- out of which a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was seized; and (iii) gold and silver jewellery valuing at Rs.8,89,900/- 3. In the present appeal filed by the appellant we are only concerned with some of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, some of which were confirmed and others were deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the order of the Assessing Officer on all these items. 4. With respect t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer who observed that amount of Rs.1,60,000/- which allegedly came from the sale of Roorkee property on 16.01.1995 was a three years old transaction before the purchase of plot No. 47, Bhagat Vihar and hence this was not acceptable to the Assessing Officer. He, accordingly, treated Rs.2,30,000/- as unexplained investment and added to the income of the appellant. The CIT(A) accepted the explanation at Rs.1,60,000/- from the sale proceeds of Roorkee property. He, however, did not accept the explanation regarding Rs.70,000/- out of past savings of Smt. Laxmi Devi. Consequently, he disallowed the addition of Rs.1,60,000/-, while maintained the addition of Rs.70,000/-. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) in this regard and resto....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the explanation regarding 58 grams of jewellery valuing at Rs.25,230/- thereby totaling to Rs.1,71,690/-. He thus treated the balance of Rs.7,18,210/- (Rs.8,89,900/- (-)Rs.1,71,690/-) as unexplained income of the appellant. While accepting the explanation of 58 grams, he discussed the details of the entries as mentioned in annexure A-8 which was alleged by the appellant to be maintained in respect of gold items received from the customers for repair/polish etc. Before the CIT(A), affidavits were submitted, as mentioned in annexure A-8. The CIT(A), though, did not admit those affidavits, but, proceeded to record that the jewellery of 783.23 grams as explained. He also straight away accepted the explanation regarding jewellery alleged to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. With regard to addition of Rs.1,60,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and which was disallowed by the CIT(A), but confirmed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that this was a finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal and there was no perversity therein. It was a finding of fact recorded by both, the Assessing Officer as well as the Tribunal and rightly so that merely because the property was sold three years back, it cannot be believed that the appellant was having sale amount in house and utilized for purchase of property on 15.10.1998. There was no documentary evidence much less any books of accounts to substantiate the plea of the appellant that Rs. 1,60,000/- was the amount out of sale proceeds and was kep....