Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) BOTH the present appeals have been filed by the assessee under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the consolidated judgment and order dt. 14 -8 -2008, passed by the Tribunal, Lucknow in ITA Nos. 496/A11/2000 and 214/Luck/2003, for the block period 10 -4 -1987 to 14 -5 -1997.
(2.) ON 17 -10 -2008, a Co -ordinate Bench of this court has admitted the Appeal No. 168 of 2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on a true and correct interpretation of the provision of section 69 of the Act, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee had made investment in purchase of gold ornaments of the value of Rs. 14,01,171, even though the related quantity of gold ornaments had undisputedly been purchased from various parties on credit, duly supported by relevant bills and vouchers as issued by them ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct and competent to reserve the order of the first appellate authority so as to have the effect of upholding the addition of Rs. 14,01,171 as had been made in the block assessment, by invoking the provision of section 69 of the Act? (iii) Whether the view taken by the Tribunal, is not vitiated in law as being based solely on caprice, surmises and conjectures, in utter disregard of the relevant material and information that was available on record that had duly been considered by the first appellate authority, while deleting the addition ? (iv) Whether without there being any positive infirmity in the order of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal was legally correct in reserving his order, by making a new case based on its imagination and that too for the first time - On 17 -10 -2008, the same Co -ordinate Bench of this court has admitted the Appeal No. 169 of 2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case particularly that seized material/copies of the seized material were not made available to the assessee, in time, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the provisions of section 158BFA(1) are applicable ?. (ii) Whether on a true and correct interpretation of the provisions of section 132B as are applicable to the assets seized during the course of search/requisition, the assessee could be held to have made any default in payment of taxes, as per the demand raised by the assessing officer and levy of interest thereupon, is valid in the eyes of law -
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver jewellery. The assessee firm is also engaged in repair and remaking of old ornaments. On 14 -5 -1997, a search and seizure operation was carried out at the business premises of the firm and at the residences of the partners. On the basis of seized material, block assessment for the period mentioned above, under section 158BC, was passed where various additions were made. However, in first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted certain additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee as well as the Department have filed cross -appeals. The Tribunal vide its impugned order has partly allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Not being satisfied, the assessee has filed both the present appeals.;