COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SURESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 14.6.2010 which reads as under:

(2.) The short facts of the case appear to be that there was block assessment made by the assessing officer vide order dated 24.1.2003 and in the said block assessment order, it was found that the demand drafts purchased by assessee were not sufficiently explained to the tune of Rs.42,53,000/-. Further investment of Rs.8,19,000/- in the residence purchased has also not been disclosed earlier. He found that sums of RS.36,61,575/- investment in the Maruthi Technology has not been properly explained and the investment of Rs.10,27,385/- in Museum Road Apartment has been undervalued and, hence, ultimately, he assessed undisclosed income of Rs.1,34,42,930/- in the respective block period from 1.4.1990 to 27.7.2000.

(3.) The matter was carried in the appeal before CIT(Appeals) and the CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 2.7.2007 found that the demand draft of Rs.42,53,000/- purchased by the assessee were sufficiently explained as the amount of Rs.50 lakhs was withdrawn from the Company's Bank Account. Further, the investment of Rs.8,90,000/- was already disclosed earlier in the VDIS Scheme. He also found that a sum of Rs.36,61,575/- as investment in Maruthi Technology, credit was explained by the assessee and he also found that sum of Rs.10,27,385/- and the investment in the Museum Road Apartment has been undervalued was not acceptable. The valuation made in the registration for Rs.5,50,000/- was held to be acceptable and consequently the appeal was allowed.