Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The appellant -assessee has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short 'the Tribunal') dated 12th September, 2008, passed in ITA No. 373 (ASR)/2007 (The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -II, Jalandhar Vs. Sh. Sham Sunder, Jalandhar).
(2.) The aforesaid appeal was admitted on February 16, 2010 for determination of the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the Tribunal mis -directed itself in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,91,672/ - made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of the statement of the appellant -assessee recorded during the survey under Sec. 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having no evidentiary value in law? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal acted illegally and perversely in upholding the addition of Rs. 9 lacs made by the Assessing Officer, received by the appellant by way of gifts, representing income from undisclosed sources liable to assessed under Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act -
(3.) In view of the consensus between the parties, it is not necessary to delve into the detailed facts of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant -assessee submitted that so far as question No. 1 is concerned, since the assessee had made surrender of Rs. 15.00 lacs at the time of survey under Sec. 133A of the Act on 14th August, 2003, the said addition is not being challenged. However, the addition of Rs. 91,672/ - sustained by the Tribunal on account of stock of unaccounted gold and diamond being an afterthought was uncalled for. According to the learned counsel, the amount of Rs. 91,672/ - was entered in the regular Books of Account and in such a situation, the addition of Rs. 91,672/ - was unsustainable.;