- (1.) We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. Search and seizure operation was carried out in the premises of one Shobhan Raj Mehta. It is alleged that several incriminating documents were found which showed that Rs.1,13,40,000/- was received by the assessee-Pavan Kumar Agarwal. Based on this search and seizure operation the aforesaid sum was added to the income of the assessee under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order dated 31.12.2011 filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was allowed by an order dated 19.4.2012. The addition made by the assessing officer was deleted.
(2.) Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was rejected and consequently, the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is, that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed a manifest error in allowing the appeal. It was urged that from a perusal of the documents it was clear that incriminating documents were found which showed that the assessee had received a sum of Rs.1,13,40,000/-.;