COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAMESH BHAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has approached this Court by filing the present appeal, raising the following substantial questions of law, short, "the Tribunal"), in IT(SS)A No. 7/Del/2001, for the block period 1988 -89 to 1998 -99 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,094 made by the AO on account of unexplained investments made by the assessee in the purchase of plots, properties and construction of house on the basis of seized documents ? 2.WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,49,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of jewellery -

(2.) Briefly, the facts as noticed in the orders passed by the authorities below, are that the search and seizure operation was carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized. While framing the assessment for the block period, certain additions were made on various accounts, which were either set aside by the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) (for short, "the CIT(A)") or by the Tribunal.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved against the order passed by the Tribunal whereby it had upheld the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO on account of the alleged unexplained investment in the purchase of plots, properties, construction of house and purchase of jewellery. Counsel for the Revenue has argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues are perverse as the relevant material has not been considered. As far as the issue of alleged unexplained investments made in the purchase of plots, properties and construction of house are concerned, the Tribunal while concurring with the view expressed by the CIT(A) found that the assessee and his wife were income -tax assessees for a long time even prior to the block period. Accordingly, the position reflected and the income shown by both the assessees cannot be brushed aside. The position sought to be explained by the assessee by filing the returns for the block period cannot be said to be "make belief statement of affairs". The assessee had also provided information and also furnished affidavits of the persons from whom he had raised loans/advances, some of whom were assessed to tax. Neither these affidavits were controverted nor the persons were examined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal upheld the view expressed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition on this account.