D.K. Jain, J. - (1.) Challenge in these two appeals, by special leave, is to the orders dated 21st December, 2001 and 19th February, 2002 whereby the High Court of Delhi dismissed: (i) the appeal filed by the Appellant herein under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") in I.T.A. No. 202 of 2001, holding that the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") did not give rise to any substantial question of law; and (ii) the review petition preferred by the Appellant against order dated 21st December, 2001, holding that the petition was not maintainable.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts material for adjudication of the present appeals may be stated. These are: The Appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessee") was a partner in a firm, named and styled as M/s Des Raj Tilak Raj, having its business at Delhi, with a branch at Calcutta. The said partnership firm was dissolved w.e.f. 1st April 1982. As per the dissolution deed, the Assessee took over the business of the Calcutta branch of the erstwhile firm. Thereafter, from 21st October, 1982, the Assessee started a proprietary concern by the name of M/s Des Raj Vijay Kumar.
(3.) On 27th May, 1983, a search took place at the Assessees premises during which certain incriminating documents were recovered and seized. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-1984, for which the previous year ended on 31st March 1983, the assessing officer examined the seized record. One of the registers so examined, revealed cash receipts of Rs. 3,49,991/- in the name of 15 persons, most of which were purportedly received during the period of April, 1982 to October, 1982. When the assessing officer sought an explanation from the Assessee with regard to the said cash credits in the register, the Assessee merely stated that the cash receipts were in the nature of realisations from the past debtors of the erstwhile firm. In order to appreciate the said stand, the assessing officer called for the account books of the Calcutta branch of the erstwhile firm for the relevant period, but the Assessee failed to produce them. The assessing officer also examined the Assessees brother, a partner in the erstwhile firm, who also stated that the account books were not available.;