IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 363/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 RAJNI MALIK         ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
              23.05.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, but do not 
 feel that this appeal is to be entertained as the concurrent findings 
 recorded by the CIT (Appeals) and the tribunal, are factual and do not 
 require interference. 
 . 
 2. The respondent-assessee is an individual and during the period 
 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 had sold jewellery for 
 Rs.1,32,00,000/-.  The sale proceeds were declared as long term capital 
 gain.  The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and held that the 
 assessee was unable to satisfactorily disclose and state the source of 
 procurement of the jewellery.  The entire amount of Rs.1,32,00,000/- 
 should be treated as income earned from undisclosed sources. 
 . 
 3. Before the first appellate authority, the respondent-assessee had 
 filed an application under Rule 46A for production of additional 
 documents as she was denied adequate and fair opportunity.  The Assessing 
 Officer in his reply accepted and admitted that the assessee was not 
 provided adequate opportunity of hearing and to present her case. 
 . 
 Additional evidence was admitted in form of affidavits and certificates.  We may note that before the Assessing Officer also the assessee had 
 stated that she had inherited the jewellery from her father and mother, 
 who had expired on 5th December, 2002 and 28th June, 1998, respectively. 
 Her father was a Doctor and a Director of a hospital in district 
 Bhavnagar, Gujarat.  After death of the parents, there was a family 
 settlement between the asseessee and her brother and sister, which was 
 recorded in a memorandum.  The jewellery in a bank locker of the parents 
 was inherited by the respondent-assessee.  The respondent-assessee had 
 further stated that she had received jewellery of 71.9 tolas at the time 
 of her marriage in 1984.  The respondent-assessee had disclosed jewellery 
 of 217.90 tolas in the assessment year 1993-94. 
 . 
 4. The CIT (Appeals) keeping in view the status of the parents and 
 family, memorandum of family settlement, relinquishment deed, the 
 declaration made by the respondent-assessee in the assessment year 1993- 
 94, etc. have accepted the contention of the assessee.  The tribunal has 
 affirmed the said findings, which are purely findings of facts.  The 
 tribunal has also noted that the bank locker in question had not been 
 operated from March 2000 till the same was broken on 24th December, 2003. 
 The quantum of jewellery can be a matter of debate but the appellate 
 authorities have examined relevant aspects and decided the question on 
 preponderance of probabilities. 
 . 
 5. Keeping in view the factual matrix and after examining the reasons 
 recorded by the first appellate authority and the tribunal, we do not see 
 any reason or ground to interfere or hold that the said findings are 
 perverse.  The appeal is dismissed.   No costs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 MAY 23, 2012 
 . 
 NA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 1, 2 and 3 
 .