USHAKANT N. PATEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) HOWEVER , the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C, has referred the following question under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act) after reframing the same to bring out the real controversy and observing that question Nos. 1 to 7 as proposed are mere arguments and facets of reframed question No. 8 :

(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 s. 69 of the Act.