https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62586 Additions for unexplained investment could not be sustained where the papers were found in the premises of another firm, the assessee had no direct connection with that premises, and the munim's statement was recorded only in the other firm's proceedings without cross-examination in the assessee's case. Evidence from proceedings against another assessee could not be used against the present assessee without compliance with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and earlier findings in the other firm's matter did not create issue estoppel or res judicata in income-tax proceedings. As the entries could also relate to another concern in which the assessee was only a partner, the revenue failed to prove exclusive individual investment. en-us Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:48:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62586 Additions for unexplained investment could not be sustained where the papers were found in the premises of another firm, the assessee had no direct connection with that premises, and the munim's statement was recorded only in the other firm's proceedings without cross-examination in the assessee's case. Evidence from proceedings against another assessee could not be used against the present assessee without compliance with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and earlier findings in the other firm's matter did not create issue estoppel or res judicata in income-tax proceedings. As the entries could also relate to another concern in which the assessee was only a partner, the revenue failed to prove exclusive individual investment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62586