9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und for addition of seven crores be added in the hand of the assessee. Circular dated 10.3.2003 F. No. 286/2/2003- IT (Inv) held that more confession during the course of search and seizure operation cannot be a ground for addition in the income of the Assessee. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the Appellant is of no help. The case in hand the assessee has given documents, material and explained threadbare with regard to amount of 24 crores but the assessing authority has mechanically made the addition of 7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee-respondent in the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was admitted by this Court on 6.12.2012 on the following questions of law- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse in as much as on identical issue and on similar facts in the case of Mr. Ravindra Kumar Verma in ITA No. 892/Luc/05 dated 04.02.2009, the same bench held the retraction to be void & illegal. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 7 crore inspite of the fact that the surrender was made voluntarily with due care and caution and after necessary consultation, with all concerned. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Hon'ble ITAT was right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om trading in commodity exchange. Further on 15.9.2005 the statement of Raj Kumar Arora son of assessee was also recorded who reiterated the surrender of ₹ 31 crores to be taxed. But, seen the return filed by the Assessee disclosing taxable income of ₹ 24 crores (even after surrendering ₹ 31 crores) has retracted from his statement. The assessing authority while framing the assessment order dated 31.12.2007 has assessed the total income at ₹ 31,03,04,332/- and imposed tax accordingly. The assessing authority added back ₹ 7 crores to the income of assessee on the basis of statement given by the assessee-respondent under Section 132(4) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the assessee preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided on 27.9.2016. Counsel for the respondent had argued that the concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the authorities below in favour of the assessee respondent and no question of law arises in the present appeal. It was further emphasised that though the surrender was made for ₹ 31 crores, immediately thereafter, on 6.10.2005 when the statement was recorded under Section 132(4) the assessee has explained and had given the details that only sum of ₹ 24 crores can be taxed in the year under dispute and balance ₹ 7 crores detail will be given. The Tribunal as well as CIT(Appeals) after recording finding of fact in favour of the assessee has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 7 crores as there is no inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05, has surrendered ₹ 18 crores on account of investment made in purchase of jewellery/precious stones and ₹ 6 crores were surrendered as cash in hand duly shown in the books of account, balance ₹ 7 crores were surrendered with stipulation that details of the same would be given in due course of time. The assets to the magnitude of ₹ 7 crores were neither found by the authorities below nor such assets were identified or declared by the appellant. In such a situation, it could be inferred that no such assets actually exists. In other words, there is no clinching evidence or material to justify such addition of ₹ 7 crores. The addition can only be made, if there is incriminating material or the surrounding cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given. This approach is evident from the fact that Assessing Officer has not mechanically made addition of ₹ 9 lacs which was disclosed in the statement under Section 132(4) of Act, 1961 but actual addition is only ₹ 8,12,360/- which shows due application of mind on the part of Assessing Officer, which has been affirmed by Tribunal." In the above judgment the Hon'ble Court has come to the. conclusion that the addition was not made merely on the statement made but after looking into the explanation, books of account and other material placed before him and then made the certain addition. The case in hand, the addition have only been made on the basis of statement given on 6.10.2005. Therefore, the case law relied upon by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
