Itxa/761/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-24, Mumbai v. Mrs Veena Arora

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.761 OF 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.761 OF 2008 The Comissioner of Income Tax ..Appellant. V/s. Veena Arora ..Respondent. Mr.R.Ashokan for appellant. Ms.Asifa Khan for respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA ANDJ.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the revenue. The appeal seeks to raise the following questions of law:- a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,13,600/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to establish the source of diamond jewellery under the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.21,81,630/- being the unexplained investment in jewellery without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the discrepancy in the terms of jewellery found at the time of search and as per the Wealth Tax Return and, therefore, the assessing officer was justified in treating the - = : 2 : = - said investment as unexplained under the provisions of section 69 of the Income Tax Act ? 2. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that both the questions of law revolve around the appreciation of evidence and the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law arise in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)