9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confirmation of addition of Rs. 33,333 in respect of undisclosed income as surrendered at the time of survey. Analysis: The appeal raised seven grounds challenging the addition of Rs. 33,333 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in relation to undisclosed income surrendered during a survey. The assessee's brother had allegedly surrendered an amount of Rs. 1 lakh during the survey on behalf of himself, his wife, and the appellant. The assessee contended that the brother's statement was recorded under coercion, and no material was presented to prove that the appellant derived any undisclosed income as mentioned in the statement. The appellant argued that the surrender made by another person should not bind the assessee, citing legal precedents to support this contention. Additionally, it was highlighted that a similar addition made in another case was deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). The appellant urged for the deletion of the Rs. 33,333 addition. The Departmental Representative supported the addition, stating that the appellant had accepted the facts stated by the brother during the survey by signing the statement. The representative relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and the assessment order to justify the addition. Upon careful consideration of the submissions and relevant documents, it was noted that during the survey, the brother's statement implicating the appellant was obtained without proper interrogation or verification. The appellant later retracted from the statement, claiming it was made under coercion. The judgment emphasized the vulnerability of confessional statements obtained during surveys, highlighting the need for corroborative evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice before making additions based on such statements. The burden lies on the Revenue to provide evidence under section 69C to support additions of undisclosed income, which was found lacking in this case. Legal principles and precedents were cited to underscore the importance of not solely relying on retracted statements for additions. Considering the lack of corroborative evidence and the circumstances surrounding the statement's recording, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 33,333 was unjustified and directed the AO to delete it. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
