Judgment : This Appeal is filed under sec. 260-a of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of order dated 29-08-2008 passed in ITA No. 798/BNG/2006, for the assessment year 1985-1986, praying to decide the substantial question of law stated therein, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the it at Bangalore in ITA No. 798/BNG/2006, dated 29-08-2008 confirm the orders of the appellate commissioner and confirm the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, ward-13(1), Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity and etc., This appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] is directed against the under passed by the Income tax appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 798/Bang/2006 dated 29.8.2008 relating to the assessment year 1985-86 in respect of the respondent – assessee. 2. The assessee had declared return of income for the assessment year in question. The assessing authority in terms of the assessment order dated 31.3.2004 [copy at Annexure-C] had rejected the return and had added certain amount representing the deposits in various branches of the Karnataka Bank in the name of third persons on the premise that the fixed deposit receipts were found in the possession of the assessee during the search operation and in the follow up action it was found that the application form for making the deposits with the bank had been in the handwriting of the very assessee and moreover the persons in whose names the deposits stood were not able to substantiate the source of income for having deposits of this extent and, in fact, the persons in whose names the deposits stood were neither traceable Nor had responded to the notices issued by the income tax authorities. 3. The assessing authority treated the deposits as undisclosed investment by the assessee and added equivalent income to the income of the assessee for the relevant year and concluded the assessment on such premise. 4. The assessee appealed to the first appellate authority – Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] in ITA No. 151/Sal/CIT[A]-V/2004-05 along with appeals of other assessment years. 5. The assessing authority treated the deposits as undisclosed investment by the assessee and added equivalent income to the income of the assessee for the relevant year and concluded the assessment on such premise. 4. The assessee appealed to the first appellate authority – Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] in ITA No. 151/Sal/CIT[A]-V/2004-05 along with appeals of other assessment years. 5. The assessee met with success in terms of the order in ITA No. 151/Sal/CIT[A]-V/2004-05 dated 12.6.2006 [copy at Annexure-B] as the appellate authority was of the view that the amount representing the deposits cannot be added back to the income of the assessee for the reason that the bank officer who had deposit to support the finding by the assessing authority had gone back on his statement. 6. The further appeal by the revenue did not meet with any success as the appellate tribunal in terms of the order impugned in this appeal [copy of Annexure-A] dismissed the appeal and therefore the revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Sri. M V Seshachala, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – revenue would submit that the tribunal and the appellate commissioner were in error in simply reversing the finding of the assessing authority on the premise that the bank officer had retracted his admission; that there was no question of the bank officer retracting as in the first instance the bank officer’s statement did not amount to an admission but was only a piece of evidence which supported the inference by the assessing authority. 8. Sri. 8. Sri. M V Seshachala, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant – revenue would also draw our attention to the provisions of Section 69 A of the Act to support the order passed by the assessing authority and submits that when once the assessee who was found in possession of the fixed deposit receipts was not able to satisfactorily explain the source of investment and persons in whose names deposits stood were not even forthcoming for claiming the deposits, it is obviously an investment made by the assessee and is his undisclosed income and moreover the Tribunal and the appellate commissioner have overlooked the substantial evidence which was available and based on which the assessing authority reached inference, namely, that handwriting expert to whom the application form and signatures in the fixed deposit receipts had been sent for examination opined that the handwriting in the application form was of the assessee. 9. However, Sri. Seshachala, learned standing counsel would fairly bring to our notice an earlier Judgment of the division Bench of this court in the case of ‘The Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. J Alexander’ rendered in ITRC No. 64 of 1999 disposed of on 19.6.2008 in respect of the very assessee for other assessment years wherein this court declined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and on the very reasons and to this extent the Judgment would govern the issue. 10. Though we find that the orders passed by the appellate commissioner and affirmed by the tribunal in appeal were not very satisfactory in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellate commissioner and the tribunal have overlooked other available material on record which have otherwise supported the inference and conclusion of the assessing authority, no proper foundation having been laid at the initial stage with reference to the statutory provisions and the revenue having not pursued the matter in respect of other assessment years, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal though the revenue had urged the following substantial question as one arising in this appeal. ‘Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the deposits standing in the name of asseessee’s relatives cannot be treated as the income of the assessee despite the material detected in the course of search and statements recorded supporting the said detection clearly showed that the income belong to the assessee and consequently recorded a perverse finding?’ 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 12. However, we must observe that in the present case, when the revenue had come across huge unexplained deposits to a tune of about Rs.68 lakhs which was no doubt sought to be spread over three assessment years of the assessee, but the assessee, nevertheless, having disowned and, on the other hand, having expressly claimed it belonged to other persons in whose names deposits stood and such persons not coming forward to claim the amount, the amount obviously represents an unexplained, undisclosed income of either the assessee or of any third person and with the present proceedings in respect of the assessee having come to an end, obviously the assessee cannot lay hands on the amount and if the third parties in whose names deposits stood had not come forward to claim the ownership of deposits and even in the hands of the third parties if the amount represented an undisclosed income which had escaped the income tax liability, the revenue is obliged to proceed against the subject deposits at least for the purpose of determining the actual tax liability of the person in whose names the deposits stood and unless the person is able to explain satisfactorily about the source for investment can definitely be assessed as income of the third person in terms of the provisions of Sections 69A and 69B of the Act. 13. Therefore, the revenue is obliged to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion and we direct the appellant – revenue to take action for bringing the amount to tax and issue directions to the Bank to freeze the deposits if are available and to pursue action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 14. 13. Therefore, the revenue is obliged to pursue the matter to its logical conclusion and we direct the appellant – revenue to take action for bringing the amount to tax and issue directions to the Bank to freeze the deposits if are available and to pursue action in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 14. The present case should be an eye opener for the revenue to pursue proper action in warranted cases and to take the matters to its logical conclusion and not to leave the matters midway with half hearted attempts, particularly, as such amateurish efforts on the part of revenue can only enable any erring persons and evaders of tax liability to escape without any consequence and may even encourage them to indulge more in such activities.