1 92 itxa 1100.11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION K INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-17 .. Appellant Vs. Hazraben A. Merchant .. Respondent. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for the Appellant. Mr. Kirit Hakani with Mr. Ajay R. Singh for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1 The question of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal reads thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the unexplained cash and unexplained deposits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which were found in the control of the assessee were part of the undisclosed income of the firms and company of the group to which the assessee belonged to, deposit the fact that the assessee could not produce any evidence to prove that source of these unexplained cash and deposits were the undisclosed income of these firms and the company? 2 92 itxa 1100.11.doc 2 It is not in dispute that the undisclosed cash and unexplained deposit found during the course of search have been offered to tax by the firm in which the Assessee was the partner and the said assessments have attained finality. Once the amounts found during the course of search have already been taxed in the hands of the firm, the question of taxing the very same amount in the hands of the partner does not survive. In this view of the matter, deletion of the addition in the hands of the Assessee Partner by the ITAT cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)