9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n addition of Rs. 3,50,000 on account of agriculturists. The assessee filed returns declaring loss of Rs. 1,48,572 on 31st Oct., 1996 within due time. This addition has been made by treating the credit balance outstanding on the last date of accounting year in the account of agriculturists as ingenuine. The AO however, did accept the books of account of assessee as correct and fully verifiable which is quite evident from the observations in the assessment order. It is because of the fact that no major disallowance out of trading account or from various expenses account were made The AO also accepted the purchases made from agriculturists as correct. But has made the additions on suspicions and that the credits in their names are ingenuine. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department is aggrieved and has come in appeal before me. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. 5. I have seen the letter dt. 19th Feb., 1997 which is the bone of contention for all the three years, which is placed at p. 88 of the paper book filed by the assessee and 6n which the learned Departmental Representative has also relied. From the wordings used in the letter in the first sentence. I am not ready to accept the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative that when once the assessee has surrendered certain incomes, etc. he cannot retract from the same. It is always open to the assessee to retract from any surrender which was made under duress or pressure and if he could p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the learned AO has relied on the statements taken by the Inspector and also the statements recorded by himself. Without going into much detail, both these issues stand covered by the order of this Bench. This Bench has been consistently holding that the statements recorded by the Inspector of the Department are not valid statements as he is not authorized to record such statements and the statements recorded by the ITO without reading over, and explaining to the maker of the statements before his signature are invalid as has been held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CTO vs. Kewai Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 29, copy of which is filed on record. So, to that extent, the cross-objections are allowed. 7. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
