JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by K. Sreedhar Rao, Actg. C. J.-A search of house of resident of respondent was conducted on November 27, 1998, by Income-tax Officers. One diary was found described as GD No. 8 in said diary, name of employee working as accountant under assessee and his family members and relatives were found with details of investment of money in different shares. amount shown in diary was Rs. 13,73,136. Assessing Officer considered said amount as undisclosed income of assessee and passed assessment order. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) set aside order of Assessing Officer and held that inclusion of said amount to income of assessee is illegal. Department filed appeal before appellate Tribunal. Tribunal, in its order in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 29 has made following observations: "23. As regards ground No. 2-addition of Rs. 13,73,136, Rs. 1,25,000, Rs. 38,500, Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 1,00,000. Assessing Officer has discussed addition in order on pages 3 to 5. assessee has brought on record copy of submission dated June 12, 2000, placed on page 45, in reply to Assessing Officer's letter placed on pages 126 and 127, dated May 10, 2000, and June 19, 2000, deposition recorded on November 27, 1998, on pages 131 to 134 and deposition recorded on July 4, 2000, placed on pages 135 to 139 which makes clear that seized documents GD-8 to GD-12 were found and provided to Shri Hazarimal Bajaj who is employee. documents seized contained details of investment in shares in name of Hazarimal Bajaj and his family members and money/gift received by some others. statement under section 132(4) recorded by Assessing Officer dated November 27, 1998, and July 4, 2000, during assessment and during search wherein Hazarimal Bajaj submitted that he is taxpayer and admitted that seized documents belonged to him (question No. 9) and using folders GD-9 to GD-12 being employee and GD-8 relates to note book of Gupta business diary and further in submission dated June 12, 2000, assessee confirmed same. Since Shri Hazarimal Bajaj is taxpayer with Revenue admitting that investment belongs to him and his family. Assessing Officer admitted that investment reflected in returns of Hazarimal and his family members (Assessing Officer page 4) and examined and opined being found investment in his and family members' name cannot be easily brushed out unless there is documents showing that investment belongs to assessee with corroborative evidence. seizure of documents from custody of Hazarimal Bajaj does not lead to addition without justification since Mr. Hazarimal Bajaj accepted that investment belongs to him and his family members. Therefore, we are of opinion that addition of Rs. 13,73,136 is not justified since no specific evidence has brought on record by Assessing Officer that this investment based on seized documents GD-8 to GD-12 relates to assessee and not Mr. Hazarimal Bajaj. 24. In case of gift received by Mishrilal Bajaj and withdrawal from bank Rs. 1,25,000, he is assessee. return filed on July 30, 1998, for assessment year and afterwards, deposition dated July 4, 2000, seized documents belong to him and his family members (pages 137/138). deposition cannot be ruled out unless seized documents show that gift and loan were from undisclosed income of assessee. 25. In case of gift/loan received by Vijay Kumar Bajaj Rs. 38,500 seized documents Assessing Officer discussed addition on pages 3 to 5. deposition dated February 26, 1999, which was before Assessing Officer and on July 21, 2000, was placed on record on pages 179 to 183 along with return, computation, details of source and confirmation. Not related to assessee he is family member of Hazarimal Bajaj. Mr. Hazarimal Bajaj admitted that seized documents belong to him and family members. Mr. Vijay Kumar Bajaj admitted loan given by him (question No. 6). He is taxpayer filing returns. return for assessment year 1998-99 filed on October 16, 1998 (paper book page 184), therefore, for want of cogent evidence no addition is called for.... 29. It is fact that abovementioned ladies are taxpayers filed returns of income on July 30, 1998, and October 22, 1998, not controverted by learned Departmental representative. Their statements were recorded under section 132(4) placed on record. documents seized, i.e., GD-8 to GD-12 are admitted and belongs to Hazarimal Bajaj and not assessee, therefore, such admission being evidenced has to be controverted by Revenue on basis of evidence found during search. Not doing so, addition for name sake cannot be justified." Tribunal based on oral and documentary evidence has come to conclusion that addition of amount of income of assessee was illegal and upheld order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) with elaborate discussion with reference to evidence. Upon considering order of Appellate Tribunal, we do not find that there is any perversity in appreciating materials on record and in coming to conclusion. only possible question, Revenue could urge that finding of Appellate Tribunal is perverse and contrary to evidence and material on record, however, such question would not arise in light of above observations extracted above made by Tribunal in coming to conclusion while upholding order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In that view of matter, appeal stands dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandmal Sarawgi and Co