9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twin bungalow holders. The undisclosed and unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee was tabulated by the survey team on the basis of the impounded documents. The claim of the assessee before the survey team was that it had received certain charges against the properties sold by it which were not disclosed in the return of income. Consequently, the tabulation of additional income in the hands of the assessee and basis for such tabulation of such undisclosed income was the documents found from the possession of the assessee. The assessee in first round surrendered income, which was retracted by the assessee by the retraction statement filed before the Assessing Officer, cognizance of which has not been taken either by the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The onus is fully upon the assessee to explain with evidence as to the reason why it is retracting from its earlier disclosure of undisclosed income. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parking charges were not received from Twin bungalow holders, accordingly, after verifying the impounded material, the said portion of ₹ 2,25,000/- was retracted and not offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer vide para 6 observed as under:- 6. In this connection, it is clarified that no intimation of retraction to that extent was received by the department till date. Further, no working on the basis of impounded materials was furnished to establish that the parking charges were not received from twin bungalow. 5. In view of the same, where the assessee had failed to justify the retraction of the statement to the extent of ₹ 2,25,000/-, the said amount of ₹ 2,25,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 6. The CIT(A) vide para 7 held as under:- 7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case emanating from the assessment order as well as Statement of Facts filed along with Appeal Memo. The appellant claims that ₹ 2,25,000/- was not shown in the revised return of Income as parking charges etc was not received in respect of Twin Bunglow. The appellant also claimed before the Assessing Officer that this decision was tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no retraction statement was filed by the assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the documents which were seized and were available on record, against which the assessee consequently retracted the additional income. It was explained that for the transaction with P.K. Patil, actually the amount received was not ₹ 3 lakhs but ₹ 75,000/-. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that the assessee has failed to reconcile the figures and even failed to file any confirmation from Mr. Patil to establish its claim of receipt of only ₹ 75,000/- from him as against ₹ 3 lakhs offered during the course of survey. Further, reliance was placed on the orders of the authorities below by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In the facts of the present case before us, survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 01.03.2011. During the course of survey, certain documents were found and statement of Shri Ajinkya K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rking charges, MSEB charges and others, he voluntarily offered sum of ₹ 3.43 crores to tax for the years as mentioned in his answer to question No.8 above and promised to pay the taxes due thereon on or before 15.03.2011. It was also stated by him that the unaccounted cash receipts were utilized for the business of the assessee firm only. The break-up of the undisclosed income was as under:- Assessment Year Undisclosed and unaccounted income admitted during Survey (Amt in Rs.) 2009-10 25,75,000/- 2010-11 90,26,000/- 2011-12 2,27,82,500/- TOTAL 3,43,83,500/- 11. The Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order has enlisted the break-up of the additional income of ₹ 25,75,000/- which reads as under:- Sr No Flat/row house/bungalow holder Flat/row house/bungalow No. Area Unaccounted Parking and MSEB and other received in cash (Rs.) 1 Sulbha D Shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 945 125000 Total 25,75,000 12. The assessee thereafter filed the return of income in which additional income of ₹ 23,50,000/- was only offered. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the initial offer of ₹ 25,75,000/- was not declared in the return of income though the same was admitted to be declared vide statement recorded during the course of survey by the person carrying on the business and son of one of the partners of the assessee firm. In reply, the assessee vide letter dated 13.12.2011 admitted that the disclosure was made in respect of parking and MSEB charges received from flat holders, row house holders and MSEB charges received from twin bungalow holders. However, it was clarified by the assessee that parking charges were not received from twin bungalow holders and after verifying the impounded material, the said portion of ₹ 2,25,000/- was retracted and not offered for tax. 13. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee brought to our attention the retraction statement made by the assessee on 06.04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
