TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JJ. Ms. P.L. Bansal with Mr. M.P. Gupta Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advs., for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) has been preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I against the Order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the ITAT. The Tribunal had dismissed the Appeal of the Revenue assailing the Order of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition of Rupees 68,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act. Both the Appellate Authorities had concluded that no incriminating material had been collected in the course of a simultaneous search under Section 132 carried out on 24.11.2000 on the Assessee along with allegedly connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustification to hold that Rupees 68,00,000 could be added into the profits of the Assessee as undisclosed cash. 3. The Division Bench of this Court, comprising Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain, JJ., as their Lordships then were, have held in CIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain, [2001] 250 ITR 141 that undisclosed income not determined on the basis of material gathered in a Search cannot justify the ordering of a Block Assessment. 4. It will be useful to recall that in CIT vs. Mukundray K. Shah, [2007] 290 ITR 433 their Lordships considered it valid to take into account the contents of a Diary found as a result of a Search. Unlike the loose slips found in Ravi Kumar, in an enquiry founded on the recovered Diary it emerged that Rupees 5,99,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. ITA No.353/2009 7. The Revenue has filed this Appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Order of the Tribunal passed on 14.3.2008. The facts were that the addition was predicated on the statement of Shri Vinod Arora, recorded after the conclusion of the Search. Even this statement was controverted by Shri Arora in cross-examination inasmuch as he had confirmed having supplied all the goods in question to the assessee. On a different plank it was also observed that the Respondent Assessee as well as the other supplier were assessed to Income Tax and Sales Tax and were transacting business independent of each oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
