COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. NARESH KUMAR KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revenue is before us challenging the order dated November 18, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") pertaining to the block assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98 on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) Counsel for the respondent submits that the questions of law framed by the Revenue are mere questions of fact as they do not indicate infraction of any provision of the statute nor do they point out any legal flaw. Counsel for the assessee further submits that after holding that the gifts are not genuine and including them in Rs. 9,75,333, added to the income of the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have added another sum of Rs. 4,92,325. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly deleted this addition. As regards question No. 2, it is submitted that it is a pure question of fact. The discretion exercised by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The conclusions recorded by the Tribunal should, therefore, be affirmed and even otherwise if the jewellery was held to belong to the appellant, the Tribunal was justified in granting the benefit of past savings of Rs. 4 lakhs. As regards question No. 2(ii), it is contended that as per a CBDT circular, a woman is entitled to retain 500 grams as shridhan. The Tribunal has allowed 400 grams on account of shridhan in the case of the assessee's wife, i.e., Smt. Surbhi Kohli, and it is incorrect that this benefit has been ordered in the case of the assessee's father (Suresh Kumar Kohli). The benefit to Suresh Kumar Kohli has been granted with respect to the tatter's wife and pertains to ancestral jewellery. As regards question No. 3, it is argued that as the owner of the jewellery appeared before the Assessing Officer and claimed the jewellery as his own. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, not justified in adding the cost of the jewellery to the income of the appellant. The Tribunal has, after recording clear and cogent reasons, deleted the addition by holding that the jewellery belongs to one Harbans Lal who had filed an affidavit and appeared before the Assessing Officer.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the Assessing Officer.