COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NAMITA JAIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 10.07.2009 . Present: Ms. P.L.Bansal and Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Satish Khosla and Mr. Manu K.Giri, Advocates for the respondent. . +ITA No. 735/2009 . A search was conducted in the residential premises of Shailesh Jain under Section 132 of the Income Tax, as per which various accounts as well as FDRs in the names of various family members were seized. Assessee herein, is the wife of Shailesh Jain. Notice was also issued to her for filing Block Returns. She filed the return declaring her income as NIL, however, the Assessing Officer made three additions in the return namely: (a) Rs. 2,43,642/- on account of unexplained deposits in FDR. (b) Unexplained investments in Bank account. (c) Rs. 7,84,926/- on account of unexplained investment in jewellery. In appeal preferred by the Assessee, CIT (appeals) reduced the amount in respect of unexplained investments in jewellery by Rs.1,57,000/-, so the Assessee preferred an appeal thereagainst and the department also preferred appeals in ITAT vide impugned order, which has allowed the appeal of the Assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. It is found by the ITAT that the family members had disclosed the jewellery to the department in the regular return filed by the assessment year 2000-01 and the quantum of the jewellery discovered in the search was below that already declared. Complete details thereof in Tabular Form were submitted before the Assessing Authority as well as before CIT (Appeals), therefore, the Assessee had duly explained the jewellery in the previous return filed and nothing new was found by the Income Tax Department during search. Same was the position in respect of FDRs. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ITAT rightly held that there was no fresh material which came to the notice of the department during search operation and there was no occasion for making block assessment. We do not find any question, much less than the substantial question of law, has arisen in this . . appeal as aforesaid facts could not be disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. Dismissed. . A.K.SIKRI, J . . . . VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J . July 10, 2009 ib . #1 .