Commissioner of Income Tax vs Vinod Kumar

The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ''C, New Delhi (''Tribunal'') in ITA No. 3909/Delhi/2002 and CO. No. 189/Delhi/2005 relevant for the assessment year 1990-91.

It appears that the Enforcement Directorate intercepted a white Maruti Car and seized some cash from the car. As a follow-up action, a search was conducted on 2-8-1989 by the Directorate of revenue Intelligence (''DRI'') at the several premises including 53, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi. From the latter premises, 26 foreign marked gold biscuits, jewellery, gold guineas, silver coins, cash etc., were found. During the course of investigation, it came to the light that No. 53, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi belonged to the assessee''s elder sister for whom the assessee was holding General Power of Attorney. The assessee was also a witness on the receipt for the sale of the said property.

On this basis, the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 37,87,618 to the assessee''s income.

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (''Commissioner (Appeals)''). The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the additions on the ground that the custom authorities had already given a finding under the Gold Control Act and the Customs Act that the premises bearing No. 53, Priyadarshini Vihar, Delhi did not belong to the assessee and that the assessee had nothing to do with the valuables which were seized by the DRI.

Against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleted the addition of Rs. 37,37,610 made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed assets.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) attained finality since no other proceedings were initiated against the assessee in respect of the contraband and cash. It was found that the revenue had not brought on record any material to suggest that the premises in question was owned by the assessee and recovery of articles which were found at the premises did not belong to the assessee at all.

We do not find any fault in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. There is no other material on record that has been relied upon by the revenue to show that the premises did belong to the assessee despite the fact that the assessee had got a general power of attorney from his elder sister.

We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 20-1-2006 passed by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Dismissed.