9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,50,000 on account of agriculturists - genuineness of credit balance. 2. Surrender of loss by assessee under pressure - validity of surrender. 3. Reliance on statements by Inspector and ITO - validity of statements. Analysis: Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 3,50,000 on account of agriculturists The appeal involved the Department challenging the addition of Rs. 3,50,000 on account of agriculturists by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO made the addition based on suspicions regarding the credit balance outstanding in the account of agriculturists. However, it was noted that the AO accepted the books of account of the assessee as correct and fully verifiable. The AO also acknowledged the correctness of purchases made from agriculturists. The primary contention was that the credits in the names of agriculturists were considered ingenuine. The CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee and deleted the additions for all the relevant years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of material or independent evidence to support the additions. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals on this issue. Issue 2: Surrender of loss by assessee under pressure The second issue revolved around the surrender of loss by the assessee for multiple years under alleged duress and pressure. The Department contended that once an assessee surrenders certain incomes, they cannot retract from the same. However, the Tribunal held that it is within the rights of the assessee to retract from a surrender made under duress if it can be proven that the surrender was not based on facts. The Tribunal noted that the surrender in this case was not voluntary, as it was made based on a suggestion during a survey without concrete evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the retraction of the surrender was valid, and the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions for all the relevant years was upheld. The Department's appeals were dismissed on this issue. Issue 3: Reliance on statements by Inspector and ITO The final issue pertained to the reliance placed by the AO on statements taken by the Inspector and the ITO. The Tribunal highlighted that statements recorded by the Inspector of the Department were deemed invalid as he lacked authorization to record such statements. Additionally, statements recorded by the ITO without proper procedure, such as reading over and explaining the statements before obtaining signatures, were also considered invalid. The Tribunal referred to a relevant High Court case to support this position. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the cross-objections raised by the assessee's representative on this issue. The Department's appeals were dismissed, while the cross-objections were allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO and dismissed the Department's appeals while allowing the cross-objections related to the validity of statements recorded by the Inspector and ITO.
|
