Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ; merely on the basis that assessee in course of statement made under S. 132, had admitted that said jewellery belonged to him, could not be sustained ,when in the course of assessment proceedings established that jewellery seized from him actually belonged to his employer .There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced by assessee only at time when seizure has been made and not during assessment proceedings .Accordingly the order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed .(BP 1-4-1989 to 16-7-1999)
CIT v. Rakesh Ramani. (2018) 256 Taxman 299/ 168 DTR 356 (Bom) (HC)
S. 69A : Unexplained money -Search and seizure -Block assessment -Statement on oath- Merely on the basis that assessee in course of statement made under S. 132(4) had admitted that said jewellery belonged to him, could not be sustained ,when in the course of assessment proceedings established that jewellery seized from him actually belonged to his employer – There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced by assessee only at time when seizure has been made and not during assessment proceedings .[ S.132(4) , 158BC ]