TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the addition of Rs. 4,92,325 made by the Assessing Officer on account of non- genuine gifts was covered by the addition of Rs. 9,75,333 confirmed on account of peak of unexplained credits in various bank accounts when both the additions were independent of each other ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the benefit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessing Officer was well within his jurisdiction to add Rs. 4,92,325 to the income of the assessee. As his next argument, counsel for the Revenue submits that the benefit of past savings of Rs. 4 lakhs allowed with respect to the jewellery found in locker No. 39 is contrary to the record as the assessee was unable to refer to any withdrawals for purchase of jewellery. It is further contended that the benefit of 400 grams of the jewellery, allowed to the assessee's wife is incorrect as similar benefit had already been allowed in the case of the assessee's father, Sh. Suresh Kumar Kohli. The benefit of shridhan could only have been allowed either to the assessee in the present case or to his father, who is the assessee in I. T. A. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question No. 2 (ii), it is contended that as per a CBDT circular, a woman is entitled to retain 500 grams as shridhan. The Tribunal has allowed 400 grams on account of shridhan in the case of the assessee's wife, i.e., Smt. Surbhi Kohli, and it is incorrect that this benefit has been ordered in the case of the assessee's father (Suresh Kumar Kohli). The benefit to Suresh Kumar Kohli has been granted with respect to the latter's wife and pertains to ancestral jewellery. As regards question No. 3, it is argued that as the owner of the jewellery appeared before the Assessing Officer and claimed the jewellery as his own. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not justified in adding the cost of the jewellery to the income of the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., under the Income-tax Act, 1961, is maintainable only if it raises a substantial question of law and, therefore, inheres an infraction of law, a misreading of evidence, disregard of statutory provisions, a consideration that is perverse and arbitrary or if it raises a question of law that has not been answered. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it does not suffer from any of these infractions and the Tribunal has while recording its opinion considered the matter in its entirety and only thereafter recorded findings against the Revenue. Admittedly, Rs. 4,92,325 on account of non-genuine gifts was already included in the addition of Rs. 9,75,333 made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly deleted this additi....