MEDICAL LAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions of law arise for consideration before this Hon'ble court.:

(2.) The Revenue appealed the decision of the appellate authority. The Revenue's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal found that the appellant had singularly failed to discharge the burden of proof qua what is claimed by it. This is in regard to the addition made towards the cost of construction of the building. It is found that the Revenue's case is not only supported by the voluntary statement under section 132(4) which stands not retracted but also corroborated by the DVO's report to which no valid rebuttal has been made by the assessee. But the Tribunal found it justifiable to restrict the addition towards unexplained investment to building at Rs. 4,00,000 as declared by the assessee. As far as the second issue, namely, the claim of depreciation allowance also was concerned, the Tribunal took note of the words "or any expense, deduction or allowance claimed under this Act which is found to be false" added to the definition of the undisclosed income, vide section 158B(b) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2002, with effect from July 1, 1995, which clinched the issue against the assessee. The Tribunal found that Chapter XIV-B provides separate procedure for assessment of any income revealed by search or requisition. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the appellant is before us.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Revenue.