- (1.) APPEAL (High Court) -Substantial question of law -Search and seizure -Computation of undisclosed income -Articles of jewellery as well as silver found in the safe of the assessee -Addition was sustained only where no believable explanation was given - Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings as recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence -Similarly, Tribunal examined the available evidence on record and estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 4,000 per acre -In view of absence of accounts, the view of the Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonable or unfair -No interference called for Held
(2.) The entire evidence has been considered by the Tribunal. It has been found that the articles of jewellery as well as silver were found in the safe of the assessee. Wherever a believable explanation was offered, the claim of the assessee was accepted. However, in matters where no explanation was given, the addition was made. To illustrate, it may be observed that 455.200 gms. of jewellery was alleged to be belonging to Smt. K. The assessee's explanation in respect of 405 gms. of jewellery has been accepted. With regard to the remaining amount of jewellery viz. 50.200 gms. it has been found that "no explanation has been rendered either before the AO or before the Tribunal. It was also not explained as to how the jewellery had "found place in the safe of the assessee". Resultantly, the addition was made in respect of 50.200 gms. of jewellery. Similarly, in the case of S it was found that she had 45 gms. of jewellery on her person. This statement was accepted. However, no explanation with regard to 20 gms. was given. Thus, the addition made by the AO was upheld. As for silver, it is the admitted position that it was recovered from the appellant's custody. Resultantly, an addition on that account was made. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the findings as recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on the file.
(3.) The Tribunal has examined the available evidence on the record and found that the income from land from the asst. year 1986 -87 to 1990 -91 can be fixed at Rs. 4,000 per acre. Keeping in view the fact that no accounts were produced, the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be unreasonable or unfair. If the assessee had produced accounts and shown the cost of inputs and the amount of other expenses as also the total yield, it may have been possible to find out the exact income. However, since it is the assessee's own case that the account was not produced at the relevant time, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong so as to call for any interference in the second appeal. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the order so as to call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 4, 6 & 7);