Vinod Chandran, J.

The appeal by the Revenue raises a question of law as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in having interfered with the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) as confirmed in first appeal by deleting the addition made of “pakadi” as disclosed by another in his sworn statement taken under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The facts disclose that the search proceedings under Section 158BC was carried out in the premises of one K.K. Lakshmanan. A sworn statement was taken from the said person who in the course of the statement deposed that an amount of Rs.38 lakhs was given to one Ravi as “pakadi” for vacating a premises in which the said Ravi had been carrying on business and later, the assessee's wife and brother have been carrying on a business.

2. There was a search conducted in the premises of C.M. Ravi also, the assessee-respondent herein. No incriminating material was discovered. The statement was confronted to Ravi, the respondent herein, who denied having received any such amounts. The specific contention taken up by Ravi was that the premises was one owned by Pazhayanadakkavu Pandyasamooham Trust. He had