Double assessment is impermissible when the same income is already taxed in another person's hands.

Taxing the same amount in the assessee's hands was impermissible where the Revenue ed that the amount had already been assessed in the hands of another person. The Tribunal's reliance on that factual position was not displaced by the objection that it amounted to additional evidence, because the Department was expected to place the true facts on record rather than seek a technical double assessment. The addition was therefore unsustainable, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition to the assessee's income could be sustained when the same amount had already been assessed in the hands of another person, and whether the Revenue could resist the Tribunal's reliance on that fact on the ground of additional evidence.

Analysis: The amount added to the assessee's income was found to have already been included in the income of Ramesh Kumar Jain, and the Revenue did not dispute that factual position. In these circumstances, taxing the same amount in two hands was impermissible. The objection that the Tribunal should not have considered the fact as additional evidence under the Appellate Tribunal Rules was rejected in substance, since fairness required the Department to have brought the true factual position on record instead of attempting a technical double assessment.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---