9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 20,000 on account of unexplained investment with regard to sale proceeds of house. 2. Estimation of profit on sale of gold at Rs. 400 per gold biscuit. 3. Addition of Rs. 28,000 on account of alleged loan advanced by the assessee to his son. 4. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained opening capital of Rs. 4,81,836. 5. Addition of Rs. 8 lakhs made on account of surrender under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 20,000 on account of unexplained investment with regard to sale proceeds of house The CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 20,000 made by the AO, who viewed the difference between the sale deed amount (Rs. 35,000) and the amount recorded in the seized note book (Rs. 55,000) as unexplained investment. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the registered sale deed's price is presumed correct. Issue 2: Estimation of profit on sale of gold at Rs. 400 per gold biscuit The AO estimated the profit at Rs. 500 per gold biscuit based on local enquiries, but the CIT(A) reduced it to Rs. 400. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the sales and purchases were unvouched and the profit varied day-to-day. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 28,000 on account of alleged loan advanced by the assessee to his son The AO added Rs. 28,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 based on a seized document indicating loans to the assessee's son. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's new explanation and affidavit, not presented before lower authorities, and upheld the addition. Issue 4: Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained opening capital of Rs. 4,81,836 The AO treated the opening capital of Rs. 4,81,836 as unexplained income under section 68. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that the capital was based on seized diaries/note books, which had a presumption of correctness under section 132(4A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the circumstantial evidence supporting the assessee's claim. Issue 5: Addition of Rs. 8 lakhs made on account of surrender under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The AO added Rs. 8 lakhs based on the assessee's surrender during a hospital statement, which the assessee later resiled. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The Tribunal, however, deleted the addition, noting the surrender was induced by misrepresentation of facts by the ADI and was not voluntary. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court rulings that admissions made under duress or misrepresentation are not binding. Separate Judgement by Judicial Member on Issue 5: The Judicial Member dissented, arguing the statement was voluntary and witnessed by two independent witnesses, and the surrender was made with awareness of legal consequences. The Judicial Member upheld the addition, stating the assessee's retraction lacked plausible evidence. Third Member Decision: The Third Member sided with the Accountant Member, agreeing that the surrender was induced by misrepresentation and the statement was not voluntary, thus directing the deletion of the Rs. 8 lakhs addition.
|
