IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
  06.05.2009 
.
.
.
 Present:       Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Mr M.P. Gupta and Mr Sanjeev Rajpal, 
 Advocates for the Appellant. 
.
 +  ITA 280/2009 
.
 Two issues arose for consideration before the ITAT.  The first was on 
 account of additions made due to under-valuation of diamonds found in stock with 
 the assessee and the second issue pertained to addition made to the tune of Rs 
 5.00 lacs on account of unexplained capital introduced by the partners of the 
 assessee.  In so far as the first issue is concerned it is accepted that the 
 Assessing Officer sought to add the difference in the valuation between one 
 carried out by the assessee and the Revenue, by relying upon the error committed 
 by the officers of the Revenue during survey operations, whereby the weight of 
 the diamonds was recorded in grams as against its correct denomination, which 
 is, carats.  There was no dispute as to the rate to be applied which in the 
 instant case was Rs 7,000/- per carat as against Rs 7,000/- per gram.  We note 
 that there is concurrent finding of fact to the effect that recordal of weight 
 of diamonds in grams was done erroneously and that the measure of the diamonds 
 was actually intended to be in carats.  In view of this the difference in 
 valuation  was  explained and the deletion of a sum of Rs 13,02,490/- was 
 sustained by ITAT.  We find 
 ITA 280/2009                                                               Page 
 1 of 2 
.
 no error in the view taken by the ITAT. 
 As regards the second issue, in our view, once again the ITAT has 
 correctly appreciated the law that no addition under Section 68 of the Income 
 Tax Act, 1961 could have been made in respect of money introduced by the two 
 partners of the assessee on the first day of the assessee coming into existence. 
 The addition, if any, could have been made in the hands of the partners which 
 the partners claimed in any event they had disclosed in their income tax returns 
 for assessment years prior to the assessee coming into existence.  We find no 
 perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal. 
 No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.  Resultantly 
 the appeal is dismissed. 
.
.
 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 
.
.
.
 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. 
.
 MAY 06, 2009 
 kk 
.
.
.
 ITA 280/2009                                                               Page 
 2  of 2 
.
 2