9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs in block assessment proceedings based solely on the sworn statement of the assessee is justified.
Comprehensive Details: 1. The appeal challenges the order of the CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs. 12 lakhs in the block period assessment from 1995 to 2001, based on a sworn statement made by the assessee during a search operation. 2. The Department conducted a search operation and in the sworn statement, the assessee agreed to pay taxes on an unexplained income of Rs. 12 lakhs related to three properties. The AO treated this amount as representing the difference in construction costs and included it in the undisclosed income. The CIT(A) confirmed this decision. 3. The assessee's representative argued that the disclosure was a round sum agreement due to possible differences in books and returns, not specifically related to construction costs. No material was found during the search to indicate understatement of property values. 4. The Departmental Representative contended that the undisclosed income was justified as the properties were acquired below market value, and suggested further verification by the AO if the purpose of disclosure was unclear. 5. The Tribunal noted that block assessment must be based on evidence found during search, but no material was seized indicating understatement. The reliance on the sworn statement alone was questioned, citing case law requiring corroboration for confessional statements. 6. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support a confession, especially in the absence of incriminating material. The lack of clarity in the purpose of disclosure raised doubts about its validity. 7. Given the absence of material supporting the undisclosed income, the Tribunal concluded that reliance solely on the assessee's statement was unjustified. The AO was directed to delete the Rs. 12 lakhs addition in the block assessment. 8. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the addition based solely on the sworn statement.
|
