TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (5) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing 291.500 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee when such ornaments were found in the possession of Smt. Amrit Bai, her statements were recorded, the claim was accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order under section 132(12), Smt. Amrit Bai was assessed to wealth-tax for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1987-88 and onwards and there was no evidence that the assessee made investment during the previous year under assessment? 2. Whether, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not excluding the old gold ornaments of children of the family weighing 95-720 gms. from the assessment of the assessee and holding its value as unexplained investment by the assessee wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee, was married in the lifetime of the assessee's father and she had been given ornaments by the assessee's father? 6. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount to be added under section 69 shall be different than the value of unexplained asset computed or computable under the Wealth-tax Act? 7. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in holding 512.460 gms. of old ornaments as unexplained, in computing its value at Rs. 93,054 and in sustaining addition of such amount under section 69 of the Act? 8. Whether the learned Tribunal had material to hold that ornaments of wife of the assessee, children of the family, etc., found in different rooms in the ancestral house remained unexplained and its valu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its : Rs. 1,500 Nil 5. Debtors Rs. 2,61,310 Nil ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After recording the statement of the family members of the petitioner under section 132(4) of the Act, a summary order was passed under section 132(5) on December 23, 1983. The assets seized were retained by the Department. On appeal against the order dated December 23, 1983, the Commissioner of Income-tax exercising the power under section 132(12) passed an order on June 14, 1984, and recorded a finding that certain assets were found to be duly explained. But that order was passed without prejudice to any proceedings under any direct tax laws. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng payment of Rs. 1,001 made in S. Y. 1995 to Shri Jorawarmal. 2. Declaration given by Shri Dev Chand Doshi, eldest son-in-law of Shri Jorawarmal, confirming the payment made by him to the appellant in S. Y. 2002. 3. Affidavit of Shri Dev Chand confirming the handing over of Rs. 3,000 to the appellant. 4. Affidavit of Shri Badamilal, son of Shri Nawal Chand, confirming the payment made of Rs. 3,000 by Shri Dev Chand to the appellant in the S. Y. 2002. 5. Affidavit of Shri Jodhkaran, son of Shri Ratanlal, confirming the payment of Rs. 3,000 by Shri Dev Chand to the appellant. 6. Affidavit of Shri Manu Ram claiming sale of milk on behalf of the appellant for the last 20 years. 7. Copies of various entries in the old books of account con....