9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure operation, we find no reason to disagree with the view recorded by CIT(A) and Tribunal and answer aforesaid question against Revenue and in favour of Assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 99 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2017 - Sudhir Agarwal, And Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. For the Appellant : D.D. Chopra,Alok Mathur For the Respondent : Mudit Agarwal 1. Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel appearing for appellant, and Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961 ) has arisen from judgment and order dated 26.10.2007 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench A , Lucknow in ITA No. 392/Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was obtained by compelling to surrender some amount for assessment; Assessee was not allowed by search authorities to contact his staff so as to find out correct position with regard to assets and tax liabilities; and documents were signed on the date of search under protest. The extract of statement of S.K.D.Singh has been placed and relevant extract thereof reads as under: I admit that I don't have any Account books maintained on day to day basis, accordingly I also admit that presently, evidences and grounds for day to day capital investment made on assets are not available with me. Keeping these facts in view, I declare that my income from coaching business is the source of Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand out of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter considering fee concession allowed Total fee estimated as discussed above Total fee declared as per returns/books of accounts Undisclosed receipts 1 2 3 4 5 6 97-98 1100 7,000 77,00,000 18,53,500 54,46,500 98-99 1200 8,000 96,00,000 30,73,910 65,26,090 99-00 1500 9,000 1,35,00,000 49,23,950 85,76,050 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s himself offered ₹ 34,00,000/- as undisclosed income, there is no basis or evidence to sustain over and above said amount, which was disclosed by Assessee himself, hence Appeal, was allowed with the aforesaid directions. 9. Against this order of CIT(A), Revenue preferred Appeal before Tribunal, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 26.10.2007 and CIT(A) s order has been confirmed. 10. Learned Counsel for appellant could not dispute that statement recorded during search and seizure could have been explained subsequently and also that after examining entire material on record actual concealment apparent from record was much less than what was disclosed by Assessee, and upheld by CIT(A) and Tribunal. 11. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
