P C FRANCIS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an individual assessee and challenges the order of the Tribunal confirming the orders of the lower authorities with respect to block proceedings for the period 1.4.1988 to 30.7.1998.

(2.) INITIALLY, the residential premises of the assessee was searched on 12.12.1996 and on the basis of incriminating documents recovered, notice was issued under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The said proceedings for the block period 1.4.1986 to 12.12.1996 ended in Annexure-A. The same is not under challenge herein.

(3.) 4.1995, 25.4.1995, 30.4.1995, 4.5.1995 and 8.5.1995, totalling Rs.4,20,000/-. The assessee contended that he had invested only Rs.1,50,000/- as per the deed of partnership entered into on 28.4.1995 (Annexure-C herein) and had retired from the partnership by deed of retirement dated 12.4.1996 (Annexure C1). On retirement, it was contended that the amount invested was returned by the continuing partners by way of cheque. In such circumstance, it was contended that there was no warrant for addition of Rs.4,20,000/-; as is alleged to have been revealed from the documents seized from another assessee's business premises. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention, finding that the seized materials were Minutes Books of the partnership firm M/s.Hotel Luciya Drive Inn Restaurant and the proceedings recorded therein were in the handwriting of the Manager of the said firm, as was admitted by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also found that one of the seized documents revealed that the actual investment was not Rs.30 lakhs as is stated in the partnership deed dated 28.4.1995, but was Rs.95 lakhs. The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal, both of which went against him. 5. Assessee is before us raising a number of questions of law with respect to the legality of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of documents recovered from another assessee's premises. The assessee also alleged that there was absolutely no cogent material available to assume a surviving partnership and in such circumstance, the addition of alleged amounts brought in by the assessee to the partnership on various dates could not at all be sustained. In such circumstance, the assessee contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and is based on a perverse appreciation of facts.