High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti
Section 260A
Devinder Gupta & Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 95 of 2001
15th January, 2002
Counsel Appeared
J.R. Goel with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Appellant : O.P. Vaish with Santosh K. Aggarwal & Vinay Vaish, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY THE COURT :
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order and the proposed question of law. In view of the following findings, we are of the view, no substantial question arises for determination. “The Revenue has failed to prove that the assessee had made any undisclosed investment in the properties named above. Thus, concurring with the findings given in the cases referred to by learned counsel, we hold that the AO was not justified in making any addition on account of undisclosed investment in any of the five properties. Thus, the addition made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment in the house properties are deleted.” “When the amount of Rs. 21 lakhs was found in the locker in the Bank of Maharashtra and further sum of Rs. 1.89 lakhs was found in Locker No. 362 in the Allahabad Bank, these amounts could be easily said to have come from professional receipts only. No other activities are being done by the assessee. Thus, the natural conclusion is that the cash amount found in these two lockers as well as the cash amount found during the course of search at the premises No. 18/49, East Patel Nagar, have come out of professional receipts only. As these amounts have already been considered and taken by the assessee while filing the return in response to notice under s. 158BC of the Act, no separate addition on account of suppressed professional receipts was called for.” Dismissed.
[Citation : 254 ITR 261]