9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He had access to all the documents which has been seized in as much as the copies had been supplied to him. However, he did not produce anything to establish that the admission was incorrect in any way. That being the position, the appellant/assessee cannot resile from his earlier statement made on 10-11.11.2005 and 21.11.2005. Although, appellant submitted that the letter dated 09.01.2006 was not an afterthought in as much as the ground for the same had been made in the statement recorded on 21.11.2005. We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The reason being that there is no mention of any documents in the letter dated 09.01.2006. As decided in statements recorded u/s 132 (4) are clearly relevant and admissible and they can be used as evidence. In fact, once there is a clear admission, voluntarily made, on the part of the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence at the hands of the Revenue. See Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [1971 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus issues raised pertain merely to appreciation of evidence, which the Tribunal has appreciated correctly - against assessee. - ITA 28/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were as under: - 21.11.2005 Q.4 Do you want to say anything else. Ans. Yes, My statement was recorded under sec. 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 11.11.2005 wherein I had voluntarily declared a sum of Rs.1 crore as my additional income. This voluntarily disclosure was given for peace of mind and to avoid litigation and on account of all seized documents, jewellery, cash and property which all family members, family firms and companies have acquired at different times. I voluntarily, keeping in consideration of issues, increase the total amount of disclosure of additional income to Rs.1.75 crores on behalf of all family members, family firms and company. I request you that no penal measures like penalty and prosecution be initiated against myself and my family members, family concerns, company in lieu of this voluntary disclosure of additional income. I promise that after receiving all the seized documents from Income-tax Department I will provide break up of this voluntary disclosure of Rs.1.75 crore in various hands. I also promise to pay the due tax as soon as possible. 5. From the aforesaid two statements it is apparent that on 10-11.11.2005, the appellant/assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized by the learned counsel for the appellant that the surrender of the said sum of money was qualified in the sense that the assessee used the words pending verification of such seized material . 9. The Tribunal examined the two statements made by the respondent assessee u/s 132 (4) of the said Act as also the said letter dated 09.01.2006. The main question raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was whether the statements, whereby the surrender was made, were sufficient for making the addition or not. The Tribunal, in this regard, held that as a general rule of practice it was unsafe to rely on a retracted confession and judicial as well as quasi-judicial authorities ought to look for corroborative evidence. But, the Tribunal held that this was not a case of a retracted confession. The Tribunal noted as a fact that the appellant/assessee had not retracted the assessment but that he had, in his letter dated 09.01.2006, confirmed the earlier statements but, this time, with a qualification that the same would be pending verification of the seized documents. The Tribunal also noted that there was no allegation of any threat or intimation having been meted out by the revenue aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso be shown to have been made under some mistake or to be otherwise incorrect. But, the onus would be on the maker of that admission. In this case it is the appellant/assessee who has admitted and surrendered a sum of Rs.1.75 crores as his undisclosed income. It was incumbent upon him to show that he had made a mistake in making that admission and that the said admission was incorrect. He had access to all the documents which has been seized in as much as the copies had been supplied to him. However, he did not produce anything to establish that the admission was incorrect in any way. That being the position, the appellant/assessee cannot resile from his earlier statement made on 10-11.11.2005 and 21.11.2005. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant/assessee also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala: (1973) 91 ITR 18 SC for the proposition that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was contended that it was open to the person who made the statement to show that it was incorrect. There cannot be any doubt about this position in law, but, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant, has not gone by this and has treated the entire sum of Rs.1.75 crores at the hands of the appellant/assessee. 15. This plea had not been taken by the appellant/assessee before the authorities below. In any event, the letter dated 9.1.2006 was written one-and-a-half-months after the recording of the statement on 21.11.2005 and was clearly an afterthought. The letter dated 09.01.2006 cannot be treated as a statement u/s 132 (4) of the said Act and only the statements recorded on 10-11/11/2005 and 21.11.2005 which are statements u/s 132(4) which have evidentiary value. 16. Although, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the letter dated 09.01.2006 was not an afterthought in as much as the ground for the same had been made in the statement recorded on 21.11.2005. We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The reason being that there is no mention of any documents in the letter dated 09.01.2006. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons we find that there is no substantial question of law in this matter. The issues raised pertain merely to appreciation of evidence, which the Tribunal, in our view, has appreciated c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
