2018 (6) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal has been admitted. However, on examination, the Registry found that the record does not contain the order suppossed to have been passed by this Court on admission. Therefore, this appeal was put on board for directions to obtain from the parties copy of the order, if any, which was passed by this Court at the stage of admission. However, both the revenue as well as the assessee are not able to assist us as they do not have a copy of any order passed by this Court in respect of admission of this appeal. Nor are they able to categorically state that this appeal was heard for admission and that an order was passed on admission. It was in the above circumstances that we kept this appeal on board for consideration for admission. 3. This a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... facts leading to the present appeal are that on 16th July, 1999 the respondent assessee was spotted with a suitcase under suspicious circumstances by the Police at Ernakulam, Kerala. On examination of the suitcase, the Police found it contained jewellery valued at Rs. 36.90 lakhs. Thus, the respondent assessee was asked to produce documentary evidence in support of the same. According to the respondent, he gave it to the Police, while the Revenue contend that he had not. Thereafter, the Police Authorities intimated the above facts to the Income Tax Authorities at Ernakulam. Consequent thereto, the Income Tax Authorities searched the suitcase on the same day and also recorded the statement of the respondent assessee under Section 132 of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee in respect of gold jewellery (page no.38 and 39 of the paper book) (3) Authority letter issued by Pravin Jewellers to assessee for carrying jewellery on behalf of Pravin Jewellers (page no.40 of the paper book) (4) Letter dated 13.8.1999 addressed by Intelligence Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, to the Deputy Director of Investigation of Incometax Department, confirming that assessee had explained that the gold jewellery in his possession was covered by issue voucher nos.118 and 119 dated 15.7.1999 issued by Pravin Jewellers, Mumbai (page no.30 of the paper book) (5) Copies of incometax returns filed by the assessee declaring income from salary received from Pravin Jewellers and interest received....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he factual evidence on record. Therefore, not sustainable. Thus, the impugned order dated 31st October, 2005 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. 10. Mr. Chhotaray the learned Counsel for the Revenue in support of the appeal, submits that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 36.90 lakhs done by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act, by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal is perverse. This essentially on the basis that the statement made by the respondent under Section 132 of the Act on 16th July, 1999 did not clearly indicate that the jewellery belong to his employer. Besides, the impugned order has also referred to some newspaper report of the seizure of the jewellery from the respondent's possession. This the impugned ord....