USHAKANT N. PATEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -assessee has proposed the following eight questions :

(2.) WHETHER , in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in throwing on the assessee a negative burden to establish that the handwritings in the notebook and the slips were not his or any of his persons, relying on the rebuttable presumptions provided by Section 132(4A) which was not applicable ?

(3.) THE assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A) for both the years: The CIT(A) allowed the appeals of the assessee holding that the AO had not established that the diaries and the loose papers seized in the course of search and seizure proceedings belonged to the assessee. The CIT(A) also recorded that there was no evidence to show that the documents contained the handwriting of the assessee. Lastly it was held that there was no basis for the AO to conclude from the seized documents that the assessee had made investments to the tune of Rs. 48,14,727, and that the investments, if any, were made in the financial year corresponding to asst. yr. 1983 -84, and hence, the AO could not have invoked Section 69 of the Act.