JUDGMENT

KAPADIA, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.The short question which arises for determination in this group of civil appeals is:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that income on the unexplained investments should be considered in the hands of the firm, M/s V.V. Enterprises.

3.For the sake of convenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts of the civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11596/2006.

4.K. Chinnathamban, the respondent-assessee, was connected with the firm by the name V.V. Enterprises, having its premises at No. 2 & 3A, East Perumanoor Road, Salem. There was a search in the premises by police officers on 19.8.1991 when Rs.1.18 crores (approx.) was seized. This seizure was followed by a survey under Section 133A and investigations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The firm was managed by one K. Palanisamy who had filed his Return and who appeared on summons and gave statements. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was detected that the books of accounts were incomplete. K. Palanisamy was not in a position to explain the source of the deposit amount o