- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties on application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The following questions are proposed : "1. Whether, on a true and correct interpretation of s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 as undisclosed investment made by the petitioner ?
(2.) WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any relevant and cogent material before it to hold that the petitioner was the 'owner' of the silver bars to enable application of s. 69A of the Act ? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the burden had been correctly placed by the Tribunal on the assessee and whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the burden stood discharged leading to the applicability of the provisions of s. 69A of the Act ? Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,06,36,909 made by the AO without any independent material or evidence available on record and merely on the basis of information gathered from the order passed by the customs authorities and even without confronting to the assessee the information or material so gathered ? Whether the order of the customs authorities constituted a valid evidence within the meaning of s. 69A r/w s. 132 (4A) of the IT Act, 1961 to come to a conclusion that the assessee was the owner of 146 silver bars ? Whether the mere possession of 146 silver bars was sufficient material for making an addition under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 and for coming to a conclusion that the assessee was the owner thereof particularly when admittedly the presumption regarding ownership under s. 132(4A) of the IT Act, 1961 was not satisfied ?
(3.) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material available with the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the burden which lay upon the AO under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 to prove the ownership, in absence of any independent material or evidence available with him, stood discharged ? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material/evidence available on record, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was the owner of 146 silver bars found from the premises A-11 and 12, sector VII, Noida is correct in law and sustainable ? Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in relying upon the statements of the assessee dt. 18th March, 1989 and 19th March, 1989, for holding that the assessee was the owner of 146 silver bars particularly when the said statements have been later on retracted by the assessee ? ;