TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. This Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in reversing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly and restoring the addition of the value of gold jewellery of 250 gms as unexplained? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not accepting the claim of the assessee regarding purchase of gold jewellery merely because of the absence of purchase bill and denial by the jeweller, when the assessee had proved and the Appellate Tribunal had accepted the source of moneys for purchase of the gold jewellery?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng recorded by the CIT(A):- "14.2 I have considered the submissions of the representative. The assessing officer is not correct in stating that the sons of the appellant never claimed during the search and post search enquires that they had paid money to the appellant. Shri.S.P. Sanjal submitted letter dated 28.9.2002 before the assessing officer and in para 4 of the above letter it is clearly mentioned that he had paid his mother Rs.1 lakhs during July to September, 2000. Similarly, in the copy of account of the appellant in the books of Shri S.P. Karthick, there were entries for payment of Rs.1 lakh on various dated from 14.7.2000 to 11.08.2000. Thus, the contention of the appellant that she received Rs.2 lakhs from her sons is correct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the assessee and in the absence of purchase bill treated the same as unexplained jewellery. In our considered view, the approach of the Tribunal is incorrect because the statement of N.S.R. Mohan was that he did not sell any gold jewellerry to the assessee and it was the said N.S.R. Mohan has accepted the fact that the had more than seven transactions with the family members of the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) found that N.S.R. Mohan sold gold jewellery without bills and that is why he had stated that there were no transaction between himself and the assessee. Thus, if the Tribunal was of the view that the statement of N.S.R. Mohan should not be discredited, then it should have remanded the matter to the authority but could....