CIT Vs. S C SETHI
LAWS(RAJ)-2006-3-154
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 10,2006

CIT Appellant
VERSUS
S C Sethi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, dated 20-2-2004.
(2.) The substantial question of law, which according to the appellant arises in this appeal has been stated as under: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of Rs. 4,67,200 following its earlier order for the assessment year 1994-95 holding that no addition can be made on the basis of uncorroborated piece of evidence/document found in the course of search in third party, ignoring the fact that the records pertaining to the assessee were being kept by the person where the search was conducted and the loose papers found during the course of search clearly indicate that not only the assessee was getting additional quarterly payments and perks over and above his salary, but the assessee was also himself dealing with those payments and perks on behalf of the employer company
(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that according to the case of the revenue , a survey was conducted in pursuance of search warrant issued against the premises of J. K. Industries/J. K. Tyre Ltd. In the course of search, certain documents were seized from the residence of one of the senior managers (Accounts) Sh. A. K. Chhajer. It is on the basis of some entry in loose papers seized from Sh. Chhajer, additions were made in the income of the respondent-assessee to the tune of Rs. 4,67,200 as income from undisclosed source by referring it to the emolumants received from the employer over and above the one which were admitted to have been received by him. The first assessment in the case of the assessee was finalized assessing the return filed on June 29, 1993. The original assessment was completed on March 28, 1996. The notice issued to Sh. A.K. Chhajer was not served on him and, therefore, he had not appeared before the Income Tax Officer so as to be available for cross-examination by the assessee.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.