9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a total surrender of Rs. 16,30,000/- was made by the assessee in his individual capacity. Thereafter return was filed and the disclosure made was not considered in the same. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee retracted the surrender made vide letter dated 29.12.2009 stating that the reason for retraction is that the surrender was obtained under coercion and undue pressure and no investments were made by him. The Assessing Officer rejected the retraction of surrender since no evidence of undue pressure exercised was filed by the assessee and also for the reason that having admitted to the investments made by him on account of his wife the denial by the assessee of having himself made no investments had no meaning. The Assessing Officer thereafter made addition on account of surrender made by the assessee of Rs. 16,30,000/-. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has now come up in appeal before us, raising following grounds : "2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) gravelly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,33,000/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and considered the material available on record. It is not dispute that the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 16.33 lacs, two days after the conclusion of search as follows : a) Rs. 10 lacs to cover discrepancies in documents seized. b) Rs. 6,30,000/- on account of amount invested by the wife in shares, mutual funds, units etc. 10. The same is therefore, to be treated as admission of undisclosed income of the assessee with evidentiary value at par with the disclosure made under oath under section 132(4) of the Act. 11. Thereafter the assessee has retracted the surrender after 11 months citing existence of pressure and coercion and absence of any incriminating material as the reason for retraction. 12. The first issue before us is whether the statement made on oath can be retracted. While the learned counsel for the assessee has stated that since the statement was extracted under pressure and there was no incriminating material relating to the surrender made, the same could be retracted. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has stated that the retraction of surrender after long time gap cannot be made. The Ld. DR relied upon judicial decisions in this regard. 13. On this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces and manner in which the pressure was exercised. The assessee, we find, has not done the same but has in fact taken 11 months to state that the search was made under pressure and even now he has not demonstrated the circumstances and manner in which the statement was given under pressure. We, therefore, concur with the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that there was no pressure or coercion at the time of making surrender. 17. Having said so, we find that it is the contention of the assessee that the surrender was being retracted since no incriminating material was found during search and the documents found were all explained to the Ld. CIT (Appeals) as most of them related to the preceding year and source of expense incurred was explained. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that in the absence of any incriminating material, there was no reason to make any surrender at all. LD.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that surrender and consequent addition was made to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs on account of certain incriminating documents found. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through each document referred by the Assessing Officer in his order and explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent from where the withdrawal was made is attached as Anneuxre-l. Further the transaction does not pertain to the A.Y. 2008-09. Page No.5: is a deposit slip issued by M/s Max Newyork Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs. 6,000/- dated 26.12.2006. The amount of Rs. 9,612/- as on dated 26.12.2006 is market value of fund on that date. The said payment was made by Sh. Rakesh Jain by withdrawing the cash from Saving Bank Account No. 18089 with Andhra Bank,Sector 17, Chandigarh. The bank statement is attached as Anneuxre-II. Further the transaction does not pertain to the A.Y. 2008-09. 01.04.2006 for Rs. 1,12,625/. The amount for payment of fees was withdrawn from saving bank account No. 18089 with Andhra Bank, sector 17, Chandigarh. The bank statement is attached as Annexure-lll.. Further the transaction does not pertain to A, Y. 2008-09. Page No. 3: is a premium deposit slip issued by M/s Max Newyork Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs. 24,000/- dated 7.8.2007, the amount was paid by Mr. Ashwani Bansal (brother-in-law of Sh. Rakesh Jain) resident of House No. 1308, Sector 19, Chandigarh. The address mentioned on the deposit slip is that of Mr. Ashwani Bansal. The confirmation of Shri Ash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee bank accounts and due evidences were also filed before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) has not controverted these facts. 20. Thus to the extent stated above, the assessee has proved with evidence that the surrender made by him was wrong/incorrect on facts and, therefore, retraction made to this extent was valid and as a consequence no addition could be made on this account. The addition made to the extent of Rs. 10 lacs on account of the surrender made by the assessee is, therefore, deleted. 21. As far as the surrender of Rs. 6.30 lacs made on account of investment made by the wife of the assessee, which was later on retracted, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee's wife had her own sources for making the investment. The learned counsel for the assessee filed the assessment order of assessee's wife for the impugned assessment year and pointed out that her returned income for the impugned year was Rs. 9,23,100/- which has been assessed as such under section 143(3) of the Act. Copy of the same was filed before us. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the investments were made out of the funds available with assessee's wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
