TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), has been filed by the assessee against the order dated October 31, 2007, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal"), in I. T. A. No. 18/Chandi/2001, relating to the block period from April 1, 1988 to September 22, 1998. 2. The assessee has claimed the following substantial questions of law for determination by this court : &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carried out at the residential premises of the assessee under section 132(1) of the Act, and pursuant thereto a notice under section 158BC was served on him. Assessment was framed, vide order dated September 29, 2000, annexure A-1. While framing the assessment the assessing authority made additions on various counts, but the assessee disputed only the addition on account of estimation of income fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is, whether the addition which has been made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in miscellaneous items amounting to Rs. 3,18,000 and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal, is valid or not. The Assessing Officer had made this addition of Rs. 3,18,000 on the ground that in the seized documents in the third column therein various....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income-tax (Appeals)." 7. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to point out that the findings concurrently recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs.3,18,000 were erroneous or perverse in any manner. Only an effort was made by the counsel for re-appreciation of evidence by this court whic....