TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Intelligence Wing of the Income Tax Department and was found to be carrying Rs.18 lakhs in cash. His statement was recorded under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and he stated that approximately Rs.4 lakhs was available with his proprietary concern M/s Sona Jewellers. He stated that he was carrying Rs.18 lakhs in cash since he was going to Bombay for purchasing diamonds for M/s Sona Jewellers. 4. As a result of the above, the Income Tax Department conducted a search of his business and residential premises at about 1.00 pm on 2nd February, 2001. At that time, the statement of the assessee was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and he stated that he was carrying R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd February, 2001 to deny having made the bills. 8. On his part, the Assessee gave a statement on 11th February, 2001 that when he was intercepted at the Delhi Airport in the morning of 2nd February, 2001, he was carrying a letter from M/s Hira Jewellers to the effect that he was carrying cash belonging to M/s Hira Jewellers. The letter was also produced by the Assessee. 9. Upon a consideration of the material on record, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the statements made by Smt. Dhanlata Marwah, Smt. Meenakshi Sharma and Smt. Shalini Bala on 2nd February, 2001 were true and correct and that their retraction was an after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh sales. The retractions by these employees were disbelieved. 14. The Tribunal also found that there was absolutely no independent evidence produced that there was any availability of cash either with the Assessee or with M/s Hira Jewellers such that the amount could be explained in the hands of the Assessee when he was intercepted on the morning of 2nd February, 2001 at the Delhi Airport. 15. In view of all these factors, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer as well as by CIT (A). 16. We are of the opinion that in view of these concurrent findings on questions of fact, no substantial question of law arises ....