COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. TEJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") against the order dt. 25th July, 2008 of the Tribunal, Special Bench, Delhi in ITA No. 163/Asr/2003 reported as Tejinder Singh v. Dy. CIT,2008 117 TTJ 145 for the asst. yr. 1998-99 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:

(2.) The Assessee is HUF engaged in the business of fabrics. In its return for the assessment year in question, the Assessee claimed long-term capital loss on account of sale of jewellery. The said jewellery was disclosed under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (for short "VDIS") valued at Rs. 7,88,131 as on 1st April, 1987. Indexed cost was higher than the price at which the same was claimed to be sold on 2nd Feb., 1998 and 18th Feb., 1998. The AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions and held the sale proceeds to be unaccounted funds of the Assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the additions. On further appeal, the Tribunal reversed the view taken by the AO and the CIT(A) mainly on the ground that in the decision rendered in the case of M/s Bemco/Manoj Aggarwal Jewellers ("Bemco") which was held applicable to M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar ("BCMK") to whom the jewellery was sold by the Assessee, additions were set aside. Findings recorded on the issue by the AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are as under:

(3.) I am directed to request you to please contact Shri Ram Mohan Singh, Dy. CIT holding jurisdiction M/s Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar for conducting necessary enquiries in the case.'