D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Vimal Raj Singhvi

D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.59/2007.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vimal Raj Singhvi Date of Order :: 4[th ]May 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. MAJMUDARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant. .... We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Inour view, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal fordetermination by this Court. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons in para 11 topara 14 of the impugned order for deleting the addition ofRs.10,75,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. It has beenrightly found by the Tribunal that the version of the revenue issolely based on presumptions raised on the seized paper;and that too on account of probabilities. It has rightly beenfound by the Tribunal that there is no evidence on record,which could be stated to have been found during search whichcould establish that assessee had paid such amount in cash;or that the amount of Rs.10,75,000/- is unexplained money ofthe assessee. The Tribunal has found that the department hasfailed to ask from the assessee on this important aspect andthat the raiding party was satisfied about the veracity of the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal has, therefore, partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee which order, in our view,requires no interference by this Court on the finding of factarrived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also dealt with the aspect of householdexpenditure in para 18 of the impugned judgment. Afterappreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that noaddition on account of undisclosed household expenses iswarranted in the block assessment on the basis of estimationsand, in our view, the Tribunal has rightly deleted the entireadditions on that count. Under such circumstances, the reasoning given by theTribunal cannot said to be perverse nor the Tribunal hasignored any principle of law nor committed any error whichcalls for our interference in this appeal; as the appeal isrequired to stand on substantial question of law which doesnot arise in this case. Hence, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. (P.B. MAJMUDAR) ,J. Mohan/