9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 11-8-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SH.MAHARSHI PRASHANT KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Tej Mohan Singh For The Respondent : Shri Manjit Singh, DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Chandigarh dated 31.12.2014 for assessment year 2010-11 challenging the addition of ₹ 91,09,000/- on account of disallowance of expenditure. 2. Brief facts are that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the appellant on 10.03.2010 and during the course of survey, the appellant had surrendered an amount of ₹ 3.60 crores, but in the return of income filed, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s summarized below: (i) All the transactions with Sh. Gurmukh Singh were recorded in the cash book. The last amount advanced was not returned back and so was claimed as expenditure, (ii) The amount of ₹ 91,09,000/- was unrealized profit, which was surrendered on 10.03.2010, but was never realized. (iii) The appellant did not want to continue with this business after the survey and subsequently Sh. Gurmukh Singh also came to know about the survey and he started avoiding the appellant. (iv) Later on, Sh. Gurmukh Singh died on 13.12.2010 and the amount could not be realized, (v) The Department is acknowledging that land trading was being done by the appellant, wherein an amount of ₹ 3,25,00,000/- had been earned till 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ention. It is a concocted story to reduce the amount of disclosure, since if a 'sauda' was entered for ₹ 5.45 crores, the land would have been sold or the amount would have been received back. Further, the voluntary disclosure was made after taking into account all the factors and there was no reason not to declare the entire surrendered amount in the return of income. At the time of survey, the appellant had never indicated that the land for which ₹ 91,09,000/- was given as token amount had not been sold. 3.3.1 The ratio of judgement of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Bachittar Singh (328 ITR 400) is squarely applicable to the case of the appellant. In that case, the assessee had surrendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed to state one thing today and to withdraw the same tomorrow. It is also pertinent to note that if such a statement is allowed to be retracted, then it would be a mockery of law. It would be too much of a travesty and abuse of the judicial process-unless there is some material on record that clearly establishes that the statement was given under duress or inducement. 3.3.3 The crucial question is whether any addition can be made on the basis of self statement given voluntarily by the assessee, which is later retracted. It is settled law that admission by a person is good piece of evidence 'thought not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is that a person making a statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. The assessee during the course of survey, surrendered an amount of ₹ 3.60 crores but when return was filed, the assessee did not declare the amount of ₹ 91,09,000/-. The assessee explained that he had entered into an agreement with Shri Gurmukh Singh for trading in land and all the transactions for purchase and sale were in cash. The assessee explained that in one of the transaction, assessee had suffered a loss amounting to ₹ 91,09,000/-. A token for land transaction was booked at ₹ 5.45 Cr on 05.03.2010 wherein advance of ₹ 91.09 lacs was with Shri Gurmukh Singh and this money was not returned back, therefore, assessee suffered a loss. The assessee filed detailed transaction chart giving the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction executed between assessee and Shri Gurmukh Singh. Further Assessing Officer should have also investigated the matter from his own sources whether assessee has earned any profit out of the last transaction. The authorities below merely going through the total surrender made by assessee has disallowed the claim of the assessee of the loss suffered in the last transaction because the amount did not receive back from Shri Gurmukh Singh. 6(i) The assessee from the evidences and material on record has been able to satisfy that there was reason for assessee not to declare an amount of ₹ 91,09,000/- in the return of income. The explanation of the assessee is supported by the material fact which should not have been ignored by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
