COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAM GOPAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the Revenue has raised two issues before us.

(2.) IT was admitted before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] as well as before the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal') that no incriminating document was found during the course of search which could suggest any sort of investment made in the Sainik Farms property by the assessee.

(3.) IT has been noted by the Tribunal, by relying upon a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Khushlal Chand Nirmal Kumar (2003) 183 CTR (MP) 503 : (2003) 263 ITR 77 (MP) that for the purposes of Chapter XIV -B of the IT Act, 1961 evidence must be found during search, which would lead to a conclusion that the assessee had some undisclosed income. The Madhya Pradesh High Court also referred to a circular issued by the CBDT being Circular No. 8 undisclosed income is to be based on the evidence found during the search and material or information gathered in post search inquiries made on the basis of evidence found during the search.