9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the course of search on 28/08/2008 and this statement was also confirmed by Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal, key person of the Group initially during the course of search and again revenue-affirmed during post search proceedings on 05/09/2008. Further, the statement was not retracted till 31/03/2009." 2. The sole ground of the appeal is against deleting the addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of undisclosed income admitted in the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The assessee is a commission agent and CNF agent of medicine and having interest income. The assessee filed his return on 30/09/2009 declaring t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the affidavit subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings giving the reasons that this surrender was made due to pressure, mental tension and duress is an afterthought to escape the payment of taxes and penalty proceedings. He further observed that the pressure and duress claimed by the assessee during the course of search was unfounded because even after the conclusion of search, during post search enquiries, the statement on oath of Shri R.s. Mittal, the main person of the group recorded U/s 131 on 05/09/2008 in which he has categorically accepted and reiterated that this surrender made by him and his family members was correct and true. This fact itself proves that the admission made by the persons during the course of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran Vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 (Pune). (vi) 89 ITD (Ahm) (T.M.) Ramesh Patel. (vii) Parm Anand Builders P Ltd. Vs. ITO 59 ITD 29. It is further held that the statement given U/s 132(4) has evidentiary value and assessee's retraction was not valid as made after seven months from the date of search, which is afterthought. The ld Assessing Officer thus made addition of Rs. 15 lacs in the income of the assessee. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee the matter before the ld CIT(A), who had deleted the addition by observing as under:- "4.4 I have carefully perused the order of the A.O., submissions of the AR and evidence available on record and concur with the submissions of the AR on the following grounds: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) is deleted and ground No. 1 raised in appeal is allowed." Considering that the Hon'ble ITAT has adjudicated on identical facts in the related case of the Group of the appellant, its finding is applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 15 lakh made on the basis of the statement of the appellant without any other corroborating incriminating evidence found during search is covered by the finding of the Hon'ble ITAT in favour of the appellant and so is deleted." 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before us. The ld Sr. DR has contended that the statement recorded U/s 132(4) has evidentiary value as held by the various courts. There was no duress and pressure on the assessee during the course of search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer is justified. Accordingly, the ld DR argued that the surrender is to be honoured by the assessee as per statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act. 5. At the outset, The ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the arguments made before the ld CIT(A) that the statement was recorded under duress, mental tension and under pressure of department on 27/08/2008 and 28/08/2008. During the course of search, no incriminating documents/cash/unaccounted assets were found and seized by the department. There is no correlation between disclosure made by the assessee and unaccounted assets found. The assessee has retracted on 31/03/2009 before close financial year and return filed U/s 153A of the Act. The department had conducted search operation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (All) (v) Chitra Devi Vs. ACIT (2002) 28 Taxworld 454 (ITAT JP) He further vehemently relied on the order of the ld CIT(A) and prayed to confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed fact that besides statement U/s 132(4), no incriminating documents were found during the course of search including undisclosed cash/assets as revealed from the assessment order of the assessee. The search was conducted on 27-28/08/2008 and statement was recorded U/s 132(4) on 28/08/2008. Copy of statement was provided by the Assessing Officer on 13/3/2009 even various requests had been made by the assessee before the DDIT(In) to provide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
