- (1.) IN this appeal, following revised questions are raised for consideration : 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 158BB read with definition of undisclosed income as contained in Section 158B(b) of the Act of 1961, learned Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition under Section 69C to the extent of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 on estimated basis without appreciating that neither any material was found in search nor any material was brought on record by the Revenue ?' 'Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal without following the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Gupta and squarely applicable in this case is not violative of the principles of judicial discipline ?' The issue in these questions involved is whether the addition made under Section 69C of Rs. 31,703 and Rs. 40,000 can be sustained.
(2.) THE admitted facts are that addition of Rs. 31,703 has been made and sustained by the Tribunal on the ground that assessee has not shown expenses on account of Grah Pravesh, death of father and birth of granddaughters and addition of Rs. 40,000 has been made and sustained on the ground of marriage of two sons. The fact is that during the block year, there was a Grah Pravesh, death of father and birth of granddaughters and no expenses have been shown on that account. Similarly, an addition of Rs. 40,000 has been made on the ground of marriage of two sons. The expenses in the marriage of two sons have been shown only Rs. 85,000 and 95,000. Considering the status of the family reflected from the jewellery and cash found during the course of search, the Tribunal has sustained this addition on appreciation of facts.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and reasons for addition, it cannot be said that addition was made without any appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case.;