- (1.) CROSS appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the Department against the impugned order dated 27.3.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in I.T.A. No.5586/Del/1996 for the block period 1986 -87; and 1996 -97.
(2.) ON 24.11.2009, a coordinate Bench has admitted the assessee's appeal on the following substantial questions of law: - "(i) Whether on the correct and true interpretation of Chapter XIV B and the definition of undisclosed income given therein the Tribunal was justified in law to confirm the addition of Rs.2,32,417 on account of peak investment in the purchase of ornaments and then also to assume gross profit of Rs.1,29,239/ - being 25% of assumed sales of Rs.5,16,956/ - outside the account books of the appellant thereby ignoring the fact that page no.41 of seized paper marked as 28 -Y found during the search was merely a dump paper which did not entitle the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to confirm the addition. (iii). Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the additions of Rs.2,32,417/ - and Rs.1,29,239/ - by not only ignoring the provisions of Sec. 69 of the I.T. Act but also judgment cited from the bar coupled with the fact that during search neither any unaccounted for assets were found nor any documents were found suggesting carrying on business by the appellant firm outside its accounts books? (iv).Whether on the true and correct interpretation of Chapter XIV and the relevant provisions contained therein the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the addition with reference to the deposits of Gold made by Mrs. Nutan Verma and Sh. Jai Prakash Agarwal thereby ignoring the provisions of Sec.132(4A) of the Income Tax Act also -
(3.) ON 23.2.2007, a coordinate Bench has admitted the Department's appeal on the following substantial questions of law: - "(1). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition corresponding the G.P. on sales of 7120 gms. of gold jewelry, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to explain the short stock of jewelry at the time of search and further during the course of assessment proceedings? (2). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.29,49,024/ - on account of pawning business. (3). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed income on account of gold jewelry, alleged to have been deposited in the names of Sarvashri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, B.S. Tayal and Dharmvir Singh. (4). Whether in the absence of any material on record, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.13,55,466/ - on account of design order books seized during search. (5). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs.3,52,999/ - and Rs.47,480/ - on account of calculations in the seized books - The brief facts of the case are that on 11.9.1995, a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, against the assessee's firm. During the course of search, various documents were found and seized. The A.O. made various additions. In appeal, as per the then law, the Tribunal partly deleted the additions. Being aggrieved, the parties have filed the cross appeals. I.T.A. No.172 of 2000 filed by the Assessee: -;