Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT

130 TTJ 42Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2761 most cited

What is Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT authority for?

Additions to income cannot be based on 'dumb documents' or material seized from third parties unless corroborated by other evidence. The presumption under section 132(4A) does not apply to seized papers found with a third party, not the assessee.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan · 130 TTJ 42 · ITAT · dumb documents · section 132(4A) · presumption · third party · corroboration · addition · seized papers

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 132(4A)Section 133ASection 144Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 153(c)(1)section 153(c)section 2(45)retraction of statementsection 131(1)section 132(4a)corpus donationdumb documentssection 292cstatement under section 132(4)section 11(1)(d)

Judgments citing Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…s. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition can be based on dumb documents. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, [19…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…s. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition can be based on dumb documents. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, [19…

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

Natasha Chopra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2290/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from 'N.S.' in cash.” • Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

ITA 674/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from 'N.S.' in cash.” • Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 673/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from 'N.S.' in cash.” • Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3266/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from 'N.S.' in cash." • Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. M/S Mahavir Jain Charitable Trust, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 208/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Mahavir Jain Income-Tax, Central Circle-Vapi, Charitable Trust, 410/411, Vs 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, Amar Chambers, Station Daman Road, Chala, Vapi- Road, Opp. Lal School, 396191 Valsad-396001 Pan No. Aamts 6784 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…vestment Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. 207 ITR 364 (Raj)  Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 84 ITD 320 (Mum. Trib.)  Rama Traders vs. First ITO 25 ITO 599 (Pat.Trib.) (TM)  Asst. CIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwani Rai 17 SOT 380 (Chd.Trib.)  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd. Trib) 6. On the basis of such submission, the assessee submitted that addition made by Assessing Officer is not valid, as the same are based on incriminating material fact recovered from a third person which could not impose liability upon the assessee unless there is a corroborative evidence found in the case of the assessee. To support suc…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 399/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.”  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.”  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.”  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…ly, the burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.”  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd) “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on money to any person including the seller. The presumption under s. 132(4A) would not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the AO to have brought some reliable…

Rajeshwer Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1910/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…ve that various Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Strawpack (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 84 ITD 320 (Mum), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 61 (Jaipur)(URO)/(2006) 99 TTJ 744 (Jaipur) dated 23.09.2005, Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 42 (Ahmedabad) (UO) dated 05.02.2010 and Pradeep Amritlal Runwal vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Pune (2014) 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune-Trib) dealt with the presumption prescribed u/s. 132(4A) and 292C of the Act and situation/issue wherein on the basis of some loose papers, the addition(s) in the hands of third person has been made. The Hon’ble Cou…

Rajeshwer Yadav, Uttar Padesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…ve that various Benches of the Tribunal in the cases of Strawpack (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 84 ITD 320 (Mum), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT 61 (Jaipur)(URO)/(2006) 99 TTJ 744 (Jaipur) dated 23.09.2005, Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 42 (Ahmedabad) (UO) dated 05.02.2010 and Pradeep Amritlal Runwal vs. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Pune (2014) 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune-Trib) dealt with the presumption prescribed u/s. 132(4A) and 292C of the Act and situation/issue wherein on the basis of some loose papers, the addition(s) in the hands of third person has been made. The Hon’ble Cou…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

ITA 45/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.25 &31/SRT/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. of M/s Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate…

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…ITR 222 (P&H). iii. CBIvs V.C. Shukla 1998 SCC 410; iw. Ashwini Kumar 39 ITR 183 (Del.); v. Satnam Singh Chhabra 74 TTJ 976 (Luck.); vi. Ashadevi 101 TTJ 332 (Ahd.); vii. ACIT vs Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR (Trib.) 533 (Pat.); viii. Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla (supra) 24. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. Through Ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.23,00,000/-for alleged O…

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…ITR 222 (P&H). iii. CBIvs V.C. Shukla 1998 SCC 410; iw. Ashwini Kumar 39 ITR 183 (Del.); v. Satnam Singh Chhabra 74 TTJ 976 (Luck.); vi. Ashadevi 101 TTJ 332 (Ahd.); vii. ACIT vs Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR (Trib.) 533 (Pat.); viii. Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla (supra) 24. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. Through Ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.23,00,000/-for alleged O…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ble presumption. (7) ACIT Vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd.): It was held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party were not sufficient to prove that the assessee indulged in such transactions. (8) Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd. UO): Held that presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available when the seized papers are recovered from third party and not from the assessee. (9) Jai Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (2006) 99 TTJ 744 (Jaipur): Held as under: ―Addition in the instant case was made on the basis of the papers found from ‗A‘ (Third Party). In search these papers were not confron…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ble presumption. (7) ACIT Vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd.): It was held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party were not sufficient to prove that the assessee indulged in such transactions. (8) Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd. UO): Held that presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available when the seized papers are recovered from third party and not from the assessee. (9) Jai Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (2006) 99 TTJ 744 (Jaipur): Held as under: ―Addition in the instant case was made on the basis of the papers found from ‗A‘ (Third Party). In search these papers were not confron…