9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned assessment order under section 153A/143(3) in consequence of an invalid search under section 132(1) of the Act. (2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A.) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged loan given by the assessee to Shri Anant Himmatsingka. ITA No. 2143/Kol./2010 (1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A.) ought to have quashed the impugned assessment order under section 153A/143(3) in consequence of an invalid search under section 132(1) of the Act. (2) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A.) erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y loan to his son-in-law and when the statement under section 132(4) of the Act was given, he was not in a normal state of mind. These receipts were sent to him by Anant Himatsingka in the expectation of receiving loans from him. 4.1. It is relevant to state that on perusal of seized receipts pages 27 28, copies of which are placed at pages 10 11 of the paper book, these receipts state that loan of ₹ 2,00,000/- received from Ajay Gupta and loan of ₹ 1,00,000/- received from Vinay Gupta. Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Vinay Gupta are sons of assessee. 5. Assessee also stated during the course of assessment proceedings that no loans were given by him and/or his sons to Shri Anant Himatsingka because of their delicate relations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see for assessment year 2003-04 and of ₹ 3,00,000/- in assessment year 2004-05. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. Ld. CIT(Appeals) after considering the submission of assessee, which was on the lines as made before Assessing Officer and the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 15.02.2006 held that the statement was recorded correctly. The statement recorded under section 132(4) even if retracted later, is a very sound and credible piece of evidence particularly when it is corroborated by other material evidences, i.e. three receipts found and seized from assessee s own premises during the course of search and seizure operation. Hence, CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retracted his statement stating that he made the statement when he was under mental pressure because of the presence of search party at his residence. He was not proper frame of mind to make the correct statement. Ld. AR referred page 17 of the paper book, which is a copy of the said letter dated 22.03.2006. He further submitted that assessee received the copy of said deposition on 17.01.2007 though he requested for a copy on 20.02.2006. Ld. AR submitted that assessee again vide his letter dated 18.01.2007 stated that statement was recorded by the concerned Officer in his own hand and assessee was made to sign the statement when he was not in normal state of mind. Ld. AR submitted that assesee also filed a letter from Shri Anant Himatsingka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. The receipts at pages 26, 27 28 of RKG/1 were seized from his possession during the course of search and seizure operation. His statement was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he confirmed that he had given loans of ₹ 5,00,000/-, ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 1,00,000/- to his son-in-law Shri Anant Himatsingka on 01.08.2002, 04.04.2003 and 04.04.2003 respectively. Ld. DR submitted that assessee has retracted the statement which is an after-thought and the same should not be considered. He further submitted that if the loan had not been given, there was no question of retaining those receipts by assessee as no prudent person will give a receipt for a loan without actually receiving the loan amount. He submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessee. We are of the considered view that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly stated that such subsequent retraction by assessee in respect of the said loan of ₹ 5,00,000/- is a desperate measure to avoid repercussions and the same could not be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly sustained the order of Assessing Officer to treat the said sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- as income of assessee from undisclosed sources in the assessment year 2003-04. Hence, Ground No. 2 of the appeal taken by assessee for assessment year 2003-04 is rejected by upholding the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 11. Now coming to assessment year 2004-05 in respect of additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
