1 IT APPEAL NO.3225-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3225 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax-21 ..Appellant Vs. M/s. Unique Roadlines ..Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for the Respondent CORAM : V C DAGA AND R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 20th September, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 Perused Appeal 3 The question sought to be raised relates to the confirmation of the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) with respect to the alleged undisclosed income in Rs. 12,89,000/- The said question is considered by the Tribunal in paragraph No.11 and 12 of its order. The same are reproduced hereunder: “11 In the present case there is no incriminating material was found in the course of search which warranted an enquiry by the AO regarding the credits which were in the Balance Sheet, It is noticed that in A.Y. 1990-1991 alone the assessee has not filed return of income. In that year in para 5 of the AO’s order business income has brought to tax because the assessee did not file a return of income in A.Y. 1990-1991. It is thus clear that for other A.Ys. Comprised in the block period return of income has been filed by the assessee. Therefore, the additional made by the AO cannot be sustained as there was a disclosure by the AO of this credit in its books of account and there was no evidence found in the course of search which warranted an enquiry into the genuineness of these credit. In the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court relied upon by the ld. DR that there was incriminating material found during the course of search, but in the case of assessee no such incriminating 2 IT APPEAL NO.3225-09 material was found. 12 The undisclosed income assessed in the present case does not fall within the domain of Chapter XIV-B as there had already been a disclosure of the transaction in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee and since there was no incriminating evidence found in the course of search.” 4 Having considered the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to hold that it is a perverse order. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed for want of substantial questions of law with no order as to costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [V C DAGA, J]