2019 (6) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t 'the Tribunal') granting relief to the Respondent-Assessee. 2. The factual matrix reveals that assessment finalized in respect of year 2007- 2008 as per order dated 31.12.2008 (Annexure A/3) came to be affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.01.2011 (Annexure A/2). This was sought to be challenged by the Assessee by filing further appeal before the Tribunal which led to passing of the impugned order dated 17.01.2018 (Annxure A-1) whereby relief has been granted to the Assessee directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 1,06,31,248/-. This made the Revenue to challenge the said verdict contending that the unexplained excess stock of gold jewellery/bullion weighing 7.696 Kg valued at Rs. 47,79,969....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and more so when the failed to establish the authenticity and identity of the ownership of the jewelleries in the individual hands of family members during the assessment proceedings? 4. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) thereby ignoring the fact that none of the family members of the assessee in their preliminary statement recorded at the time of search stated that any of their jewelries were kept in the stock of M/s Mahendra Jewellers? 5. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) that disclosure of jewellery in VDIS-97 Scheme, gives immunity to the assessee in a case where excess stock was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nclusion is based? 10. Whether in law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the ITAT is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) who has been erred by giving a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record and findings by the AO, as the CIT(A) has accepted the submission of the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 97,50,532/- in toto, which is factually incorrect, thereby rendering the decision, which is perverse?" 4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairly concedes that the appeal was filed way back in June, 2018. By virtue of the 'new litigation policy' and the circular issued subsequently on 11.07.2018 by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the subje....