Law:

Section:

JUDGMENT R. Sudhakar, J. - These appeals are filed by the assessees challenging the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench, dated 31.12.2013 made in ITA No.48/Mds/2013 and ITA.No.49/Mds/2013 respectively for the assessment year 2009-2010, raising the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in not considering the validity of the search assessment framed even after the repeated submission of lack of seized materials indicating as well as justifying the quantification of the excess jewellery by the search party as well as by the respondent in the assessment framed in consequence to the said search? (2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in sustaining the addition of the value of excess jewellery quantified as unexplained investment presumably in terms of Section 69 of the Act even though there was no indication in the assessment order passed by the respondent on the method of such quantification for making the assessment? (3) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in not considering the binding nature of the Circular issued by the Board dated 11.5.1994 on the respondent and further not considering the binding nature of the decisions cited before them explaining the scope of the said circular in order to consider the source for the disputed excess jewellery on the facts and in the circumstances of the case?" 2.1 The brief facts of the case are as under: The assessees filed their original return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 30.9.2009. The Assessing Officer, after conducting search in terms of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act (for brevity, "the Act"), reopened the assessment after issuing notice under Section 153A of the Act and such reassessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2010. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessments, found excess gold jewellery of 242.200 Grams and 331.700 Grams and seized it from the assessees respectively and such excess gold jewellery seized was treated as unexplained investment in jewellery. 2.2 Impugning the said assessment orders, the assessees preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492