9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 71,097 on account of undisclosed income. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 42,33,686 on account of suppressed receipts based on the admission made by the partners. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 71,097 on Account of Undisclosed Income Facts and Circumstances: - The assessee, a registered firm running a nursing home, was subjected to a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the IT Act, 1961. - Incriminating documents were found, leading the AO to make an addition of Rs. 71,097 based on certain small chits seized (Annex. A-89). - The AO concluded that these amounts were not recorded in the books of account and thus represented undisclosed income. Assessee's Explanation: - The assessee contended that the amounts on the chits were either advances for goods that were later refunded or related to bills already accounted for in the books. - Specific explanations and documentary evidence were provided for each entry, demonstrating that the amounts were duly recorded in the books of account. CIT(A)'s Findings: - The CIT(A) found the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee convincing and deleted the addition of Rs. 71,097. - It was observed that the amounts were indeed disclosed in the books of account, and there was no reason to treat them as undisclosed income. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the amounts were duly recorded in the books and thus did not constitute undisclosed income. - The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ground on this issue, finding no scope for interference. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 42,33,686 on Account of Suppressed Receipts Facts and Circumstances: - During the search, documents (Annex. A-26 and Annex. A-7) and statements from the partners indicated suppressed receipts. - The AO made an addition of Rs. 42,33,686, assuming 25% of professional receipts were earned outside the books of account based on the partners' statements. Assessee's Explanation: - The assessee argued that the statements were made under duress and coercion, and were not voluntary. - Retractions were made, and affidavits from witnesses supported the claim of coercion. - The assessee also pointed out that no incriminating material was found to substantiate the alleged suppression of income. CIT(A)'s Findings: - The CIT(A) accepted the retraction and the explanation provided by the assessee, noting that the statements were not voluntary. - It was observed that the statements were identical and appeared to be prepared in advance, casting doubt on their genuineness. - The CIT(A) also noted that the AO did not make any additions in the individual assessments of the partners based on these statements. Tribunal's Decision: - The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the statements were not voluntary and were obtained under duress. - The Tribunal emphasized that admissions made under coercion cannot be the sole basis for additions without corroborative evidence. - The Tribunal cited several legal precedents supporting the view that retracted statements under duress should not be relied upon without independent corroboration. - The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 42,33,686 could not be sustained solely on the basis of the coerced statements and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. Conclusion: - The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the deletions of the additions of Rs. 71,097 and Rs. 42,33,686 were upheld by the Tribunal.
|
