DIALUST Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above matter was called out for admission today. Parties were heard on admission. The petition was dismissed for the reasons to be recorded later. Accordingly, our reasons for rejection of petition based on the following facts are as under :

(2.) ALTHOUGH as many as nine questions are sought to be raised as substantial questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, in our opinion, the appellant is in fact seeking reappraisal of the evidence and there are no substantial questions of law arising in this appeal.

(3.) THE assessee is a firm of diamond exporters. On 3rd April, 1996, the office premises of the assessee were searched by the FERA authorities, wherein cut and polished diamonds, weighing 20,076.07 carats, found in the cupboard and on the table top of the assessee's office premises were seized. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the investigation branch of the IT Department, On detailed enquiry and investigation, cut and polished diamonds weighing 1,156.53 carats valued at Rs. 68,36,099 were only seized by the IT authorities under S. 132A of the IT Act, 1961, on 18th Oct., 1996. In the block assessment, those diamonds weighing 1,156.53 carats valued at Rs. 68,39,099 were added to the income of the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee under S. 69A of the IT Act. On appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order, the Tribunal on 28th Oct., 1999, dismissed the same. Hence, this appeal under S. 260A of the IT Act.