High Court Of Delhi
Sunil Dua vs. CIT
Section 132(1), 158BB,
Block period 1st April, 1987 to 16th Jan., 1998
Madan B. Lokur & S.L. Bhayana, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 1429 of 2006
30th January, 2008
Counsel Appeared :
Ram Avtar Bansal, for the Appellant : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondent
By the Court :
The assessee is aggrieved by an order dt. 24th Feb., 2006 passed by Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘D’ in IT (SS)A No. 75/Del/2001 relevant for the block assessment period 1st April, 1987 to 16th Jan., 1998.
Three issues have been raised by learned counsel for the assessee. It is firstly contended that the warrant of authorisation drawn up in favour of the Addl. Director of IT was not valid and, therefore, the search under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was itself illegal and invalid.
We have heard learned counsel for the assessee in this regard and find that the expression “Dy. Director” who is admittedly competent to issue a warrant of authorization includes an Addl. Director, in terms of the Notification No. SO 3862 dt. 6th Nov., 1979 issued by the CBDT. That being the position, all the authorities below have rightly held that the Addl. Director was competent enough to issue the warrant of authorization. There is no challenge raised by the assessee to the validity of the notification dt. 6th Nov., 1979 and, therefore, we have to proceed on the basis of its correctness.
Under the circumstances, the first contention of learned counsel for the Revenue (sic-assessee) does not merit any serious consideration.
The second contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that possession of jewellery worth Rs. 2,96,800 was duly explained by the assessee. It is submitted that out of the jewellery seized, 500 gms. were received by the wife of the assessee as a result of a will dt. 25th May, 1993 made by the grandmother of the wife of the assessee. None of the authorities below have accepted the genuineness of the will, which has been placed before us at p. 28 of paper book.
We find that the executant of the will was 95 years of age and it is nowhere mentioned that she is in a sound physical and mental condition to understand the contents of the will. Moreover, the language used in the will clearly suggests that it has been made only for the purpose of showing that 500 gms. of jewellery was bequeathed in favour of the wife of the assessee. The executant of will has signed in Gurmukhi while the will is written in Hindi and there is nothing to suggest that she has understood the contents of the will or that its contents have been explained to her.
We do not find any fallacy in the view adopted by any of the Departmental authorities whereby the genuineness of the will has not been accepted.
The third contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that the Revenue had wrongly included a sum of Rs. 30,000 as unexplained income of the wife of the assessee on account of deposits in Food Corporation of India and Unit Trust of India. It has been shown to us that the assessee was married for more than 10 years and it is quite possible that out of household expenses, the assessee’s wife could have saved the amount of Rs. 30,000, which is not a huge amount.
We are of the view that the ground of reality has been completely over looked by the authorities below and it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 30,000 is not explained by the assessee. The order of the Tribunal, to this extent, is set aside. Subject to our conclusion in respect of the third contention raised by the assessee, in our opinion, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is partly allowed.
[Citation : 330 ITR 413]