9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevance of an admission admits to another exception namely if the admission is retracted within reasonable time and by assigning valid reasons. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the assessee made an admission, on 18.01.2006 and followed it up by a written admission on 19.01.2006 but while filing his return did not retract the admission. At no stage of the survey or assessment proceedings except at its fag end on 4.12.2008 i.e. almost two years after the admissions and a few weeks before finalisation of the assessment, did the assessee raise a plea that he was coerced and forced into making admissions. The belated retracting of the admissions on 04.12.2008, nearly two years after the admissions and then also without any fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Remedies Pvt. Ltd. This apart, the assessee declared an additional amount of ₹ 50 lacs attributable to excess cash, unaccounted investment in building and unaccounted investment in machinery relating to the company. After the survey, the assessee filed a return on 31.03.2007 declaring an income of ₹ 1,99,872/-. The return was processed and eventuality in scrutiny proceedings initiated after serving notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and after appropriating requisite information namely, the account books vide order dated 26.12.2008, the assessee's statements, the assessment was concluded by adding ₹ 30 lacs to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or made under pressure, the statements have been rightly relied by the revenue while making additions. Counsel for the revenue also submits that general allegations of coercion or pressure, cannot enure to the benefit of an assessee particularly where the retraction is belated. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders. A survey under Section 133(A) of the Act was conducted on 18.01.2006. The assessee, who is the Director of M/s Oscar Remedies Pvt. Ltd., declared an additional income of ₹ 50 lacs on behalf of the company and ₹ 30 lacs on his own behalf. The assessee made the following admissions on 18.01.2006 which read as follows:- Ques.19. It has come to our notice there is some construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement dated 18.01.2006 and letter dated 19.01.2006. The assessing officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain this discrepancy in the return. The assessee filed a reply on 04.12.2006 retracting the admissions. The retractions read as follows: - 3. The statement of the assessee allegedly available on record was obtained employing coercion by the survey team and does not relate to the business activities of the deponent; 4. That the 'slip pad' was got prepared by the survey team from the assessee exerting pressure. The slip paid contains imaginary figures and do not have any nexus with the business activities and do not represent either income or investment of the deponent. The assessing officer after taking into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble time and by assigning valid reasons. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the assessee made an admission, on 18.01.2006 and followed it up by a written admission on 19.01.2006 but while filing his return did not retract the admission. At no stage of the survey or assessment proceedings except at its fag end on 4.12.2008 i.e. almost two years after the admissions and a few weeks before finalisation of the assessment, did the assessee raise a plea that he was coerced and forced into making admissions. The belated retracting of the admissions on 04.12.2008, nearly two years after the admissions and then also without any facts to support the allegation of coercion or pressure, cannot enure to the benefit of the assessee. An admissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
