TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 482
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantial questions of law: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.22,35,783 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchases during the financial year 1998-99 by directing that the figures for the F.Y. 1998-99 should be adopted for working out the availability of funds for making undisclosed investment instead of figures of F.Y. 1997-98 adopted by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that the unexplained investment in purchases during the F.Y. 1998-99 was determined by the Assessing Officer on the basis of peak unexplained investment as recorded in the seized papers and the undisclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or that years, the computation was made @ Rs.4045/-. Thus, the value of undisclosed purchase was computed at Rs.31,94,870+67,557 = Rs.32,62,427. Out of this amount, source of Rs.10,26,644 was treated as shown available out of the declared undisclosed funds. So, the A.O. has taken the balance amount of Rs.22,62,427 as on 'undisclosed investment in purchases' for the year 1998-99. Finally, the A.O. made the addition of this amount for the said year. However, the said addition was reduced by the First Appellate Authority to Rs.3,47,798/- by giving a relief to the assessee of Rs.18,87,985/-. Further, in second appeal, the Tribunal deleted the remaining amount of Rs.3,47,798/-. Being aggrieved, the department has filed the present appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e investment of Rs.10,26,644/-, out of the declared undisclosed funds of the assessee. Lastly, he justified the impugned order passed by the A.O. and made a request to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as by the CIT(A). On the other hand, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the assessee relied on the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the assessee has already declared the undisclosed income of Rs.79,00,000/-. The assessee disclosed the unaccounted sale and 20% profit thereon as undisclosed income. Further, learned counsel submits that for the year (1998-99), the assesse has shown a sum of Rs.1,12,58,177/- as undisclosed sales, but the A.O. again made a separate addition for undisclosed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pparent. Thus, the facts are quite contradictory, as different figures were claimed by the counsels during the course of arguments. When it is so then the same needs fresh determination. Before passing impugned order in a mechanical way, the Tribunal has not examined properly the facts pertaining to the availability of investment. If the finding of the facts is against the material on record or it has ignored the relevant material, the said findings can be scrutinized by this Court and is liable to be set aside the order to find out as to whether the finding is vital or not. It is necessary to examine the orders passed by the authorities below, as per the ratio laid down in the case of CTT vs. Brandavan Prem Narain, 2005 (27) NTN 366 All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rstones, Liverpool, London. An affidavit was also filed before the CIT. In the affidavit dated 12.07.1999, Dr. T.K.Rastogi alleged that he had come to visit Lucknow on 27.06.1999 and he had withdrawn Rs.6,05,850/- from the SBI, Main Branch, Lucknow on 28.06.1999 and 01.07.1999 by converting the sterling Pounds brought by him from England. He had handed over a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- for safe custody, out of that withdrawal, to the assessee as he went to visit his friends and relatives at Bareilly, Mussorie, Delhi and Patna. On 10.07.1999, he came to know that money was seized on 08.07.1999 by the income tax department from the assessee. The said affidavit which is self explanatory was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal and accor....