The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. Shri. Inder V. Nankani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.128 OF 2009..Appellant. The Commissioner of Income tax-I. Vs. Shri. Inder V. Nankani. ..Respondent. Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar with Mr. N.R. Prajapati for theAppellant. Mr.Danial with Mr. V.S. Hadade for the Respondent. PC : CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ.DATE : 24TH FEBRUARY,2009. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Revenue is in appeal on the following questions. Assessing Officer sought to add the said amount in hisincome on the ground that the assessee was unable toprove that he was actually in possession and ownershipof the diamonds and as such, income received wasundisclosed income. The learned counsel submits thatthese were hawala transactions which were unearthed on the raid being conducted on the two Chartered Accountants. 4. On behalf of the assessee, the learned counselsubmits that there was no material before the AssessingOfficer to show that the consideration received was notpart of the sale transaction. Our attention was in factinvited to Para-4.5 to 4.19 of the order of the CIT(A).The CIT(A) wrote to the Assessing Officer to submit areport of the material which was in his possession toarrive at a conclusion and also directed to submit areport whether an opportunity had been given to the assessee to cross examine the witness based on whose statement addition was sought to be done.. . It is also pointed out that, the reliance placed bythe revenue upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roshan Di Hatti Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (1977) 2 SCC 378 is totally misconceived, 5. Admittedly, the assessee had made a VDIS declarationin which diamonds were disclosed. There is no dispute the second sale, cannot result in making addition, in the hands of the assessee. as framed would arise. There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, appeal dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)