Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that there was nothing to show that the memorandum of understanding was fabricated or ante-dated. The property in question was disclosed in all the returns of income by the transferee CCPL starting from the assessment year 1993-94 to the assessment year 2009-10. The property was also reflected in the returns of the assessee in all those assessment years. The property in question was under the occupation of the tenant, i. e., the assessee. Since the finding returned by the Tribunal had not been challenged by the Department, the stand taken by the Department in respect of the land in question, vis-a-vis, the tenancy of the assessee was not justified. The assessee had disclosed the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs received for the settlement of its claim to the property and had further disclosed that such amount was invested in capital bonds. The Tribunal was not justified in confirming the addition of the amount made under the head “income from other sources.” (AY.2009-10)