9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee, how it can be proved by way of evidence that such activity has ever been undertaken by the assessee except simple denial what other evidence can be produced by the assessee. The evidence ought to have been collected by the Revenue during the search in support of the disclosure statements. Had the Revenue found any material and then obtained a disclosure from the assessees, then the assessees might not have been able to retract from their disclosure statements. But additions made only on the basis of disclosure statements normally should not be confirmed in the absence of corroboration. In the eyes of law the general rule of practice is that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession only without any corroboration. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Revenue ought not to have made the additions. We allow these appeals of the assessees and delete the additions of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 3,78,000 in the case of Amishkumar N. Shah in asst. yr. 1992-93, and Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 in the case of Smt. Ranjnaben Shah in asst. yr. 1992-93. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Member(s) : PRADEEP PARIKH., RAJPAL YADAV. JUDGMENT: Out of the present five appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 1993-94 in the hands of Amishkumar Shah and Ranjnaben Shah, respectively. The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ranjnaben Shah is the mother of Amishkumar Shah. They were residing together wherein a search operation under s. 132 of the IT Act was carried on 14th Oct., 1992, which continued upto 15th Oct., 1992, and during the search the following valuable assets were found: Cash Rs. 7,600 Gold ornaments 2,313 gms. Silver articles valued at Rs. 35,000 Jewellery valued at Rs. 30,000 and other assets as per Annex. P. The appellant Amishkumar at the relevant time was a young boy of 21 years. The mother and the son were partners in certain firms at Jamnagar. Apart from the assets found during the search, statements under s. 132(4) of the IT Act were recorded on 15th Oct., 1992. Amishkumar, the assessee, in his statement admitted having earned unaccounted income at Rs. 50,000 in asst. yr. 1992-93 and Rs. 5 lacs in asst. yr. 1993-94. He also disclosed that these incomes were earned through dealings in forward trading in shares and other business. He also disclosed that income so earned has been invested in jeweleries of Rs. 2,70,000 and the balance has been advanced to various frie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the ground that the statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the Act has considerable evidentiary value and it is for the assessee to establish that its contents do not reflect the correct state of affairs or were obtained in a legally untenable manner. The learned CIT(A) further recorded that retraction had come after a time-gap of almost a year. So, there is no denial in the eyes of law. Simply the assessees have disowned their statements recorded during the search, could not be given much weightage vis-a-vis the proceedings carried out according to law. On the basis of the above reasonings the learned CIT(A) rejected the prayers of the assessees and confirmed the additions in both the cases in both the years. 7. While impugning the findings of Revenue authorities below, the learned counsel submitted that no doubt disclosure of admission made under s. 132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. This presumption of admissibility of evidence is a rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken or untrue, then solely on the basis of such admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ular No. 286/2/2003-IT, wherein the CBDT has directed the searching parties not to obtain confessions because after a long experience it has been realized by the Revenue Department that oftenly the official used to obtain confession from the assessee and stop further recovery of materials. Such confessions have been retracted and then the additions could not withstand the scrutiny of higher authorities because no material was found supporting such additions. 8. The learned Departmental Representative while controverting the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of the CIT(A) and contended that the learned CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the additions on the basis of confessions made by the assessees during the course of search. Their statements were not recorded under duress or threat. Disclosures were voluntarily made. Therefore, they cannot be allowed to retract the disclosures made during the search. 9. We have duly considered the rival contentions. It is an undisputed fact that during the search the raiding party did not find any evidence indicating that the assessees have earned unexplained income of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 3,78,200, Rs. 15,000 and Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee from his father. It was also contended that these articles were purchased by Shri Mansukhlal Shah. It was also submitted that the AO had accepted his explanation qua number of articles found during the search, such as motor cars, etc. The learned first appellate authority was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and recorded a finding that these articles are old articles for personal use, which belong to the assessee s father. Hence, the estimated value of acquisition cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. 10.2 On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in this finding of the learned first appellate authority. On perusal of the list of articles it reveals that they are articles of personal use. The AO has not held that these were acquired by the assessee during the accounting period relevant to this assessment year. Therefore, household articles of personal use received by the assessee from his father could not be considered as acquired from undisclosed sources of income. The learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. No interference is called for. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
