- (1.) THE IT Appeal No. 84 of 2002 filed by Zakir Hussain assessee, relates to asst. yr. 1993 -94 and arises out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in appeals filed by the present appellant Zakir Hussain as well as appeal filed in respect of same assessment year by Smt. Huma Hussain, wife of the present appellant Zakir Hussain.
(2.) THE questions framed at the time of admitting the appeal No. 84 of 2002 relating to asst. yr. 1993 -94 were as under: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that permission to raise additional grounds in appeal can be granted only if such additional grounds are also taken within the period of limitation for filing the appeal, particularly when the question sought to be raised was purely a question of law? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee which was pure question of law raised on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision settling the law on the issue? (iii) If the additional grounds are taken into consideration whether levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, without there being specific directions to that effect could be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CTT v. Ranchi Club Ltd : [2001]247ITR209(SC) ? (iv) In the facts and circumstances, the finding that the explanation of Smt. Huma about the receipt of cash gifts from her parents at the time of her marriage and thereafter during the previous year 1991 in which marriage took place until the assessment order 1993 -94 has been rejected contrary to material on record and without holding any enquiry into correctness of explanation when the initial burden of proving the source of instalment (sic -investment) has been discharged by the assessee, the evidence placed by her goes unrebutted? (v) If the answer to the aforesaid question is found to be negative whether the additions could be made on account of undisclosed income relatable to such gifts at all? (vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the explanation furnished by Smt. Huma as the receipt of the gifts during the relevant years deserved to be rejected? (vii) Whether such amount could be clubbed substantively in the hands of the assessee? (viii) In the facts and circumstances, whether the Tribunal was right in law in making additions of Rs. 1,94,000 substantively in the hands of the assessee by clubbing the amount of gifts received allegedly by Smt. Huma from her parents and relatives and interest received therefrom? The appeal No. 82 of 2002 filed by Zakir Hussain relates to asst. yr. 1995 -96 against the common appellate order passed by the Tribunal in the appeals of Zakir Hussain -appellant as well as by his wife Smt. Huma Hussain.
(3.) FOR asst. yr. 1995 -96 in the appeal No. 82 of 2002 following questions of law were framed at the time of admission of appeal: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, Tribunal was justified in law in clubbing Rs. 77,502 in the hands of appellant on substantive basis by rejecting explanation furnished by Smt. Huma Hussain without holding any enquiry in the correctness of her statement mainly on the basis of conjectures and surmises? (ii) In the facts and circumstances, even if the explanation of Smt. Huma was to be rejected, whether addition could be made on substantive basis in the petitioner's assessment? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that permission to raise additional grounds in appeal can be granted only, if such additional grounds are also taken within the period of limitation for filing the appeal, particularly when the question sought to be raised was purely a question of law? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee which was pure question of law raised on the basis of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision settling the law on the issue? (v) If the additional grounds are taken into consideration, whether levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, without there being specific directions to that effect could be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ranchi Club Ltd. : [2001]247ITR209(SC);