9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hancement by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Assessee was ignorant of the basis under which the additional income of ₹ 83.33 lakhs was arrived. Hence the assessee has asked for the basis of arriving at the figure of ₹ 83.33 lakhs in his letter dated 18.02.2013 (within three days of survey operations). It appears that the assessee was not given the basis. Even at the time of hearing before us, D.R could not furnish the basis for the amount of ₹ 83.33 lakhs. Thus, it can be noticed that the revenue is unable to furnish the basis for determining the additional income of ₹ 83.33 lakhs and hence the assessee is also not aware of it. Assessee could arrive at the additional income at ₹ 50.00 lakhs and agreed to offer the same, even though the assessee also did not furnish the details thereof. In any case, the fact remains that the basis of determining additional income of ₹ 50.00 lakhs is within the personal knowledge of the assessee. We notice that the said offer has been accepted by the AO, even though the assessee did not offer the said amount also in the return of income. CIT(A) was not justified in enhancing the addition to ₹ 83.33 lakhs without f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00 lakhs over and above the returned income towards the difference in stock and difference in method of valuation. Even though, the assessee agreed for surrender of additional income of ₹ 50.00 lakhs in its letter dated 26-04-2013, he did not offer the same in the return of income filed by him. However, the AO, accepting the submissions of the assessee mentioned in the letter dated 26-04-2013, restricted the addition to ₹ 50.00 lakhs as against the offer of ₹ 83.33 lakhs made at the time of survey. 3. The assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 50.00 lakhs made by the AO by filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the addition cannot be made on the basis of statement taken during the course of survey operations, since the said statement does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following case law:- (i) CIT Vs, S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 [SC] (ii) Paul Mathews Sons Vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 [Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 [Kerala] (iv) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metl Works, [2010] 328 ITR 38 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paragraph do not come to his rescue. The appellant also made a statement in writing during the survey that the information given by him in the statement dated 14.02.2013 / 15.02.26 was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief and that he made that statement in a good state of mind without any coercion or undue influence. Therefore, the following judicial decisions are relied upon in support of the proposal for enhancement of the assessed income: When a statement was made voluntary and was not alleged to have been obtained under threat or coercion, onus was on the assessee to prove that the said declaration was made under any misconception of facts - Since the assessee had not taken any steps to rectify its declaration before authorities before whom such declaration was made, there was no valid reason for retraction of same after a gap of about two and a half months: Carpenters Classics (Exim) (P) Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITA 7; Bang) 108 TTD 142 For retraction to be valid, threat or coercion has to be proved. (i) Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi Vs. ACIT (ITA 7; A/id) 61 lTD 55 (ii) Param A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to have no evidentiary value by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Khader Khan Sons (supra). On the contrary, the Ld D.R submitted that the surrender of ₹ 83.33 lakhs made by the assessee has been arrived at on account of difference in the quantity, difference in valuation and considering income of the assessee in pawn broking business. Hence the Ld CIT(A) has held that the surrender is based upon the evidences and hence the decisions relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. We have earlier noticed that the assessee has surrendered a sum of ₹ 83.33 lakhs in the statement taken during the course of survey operations. As submitted by Ld D.R, the above said amount represented income relating to the difference in the quantity, difference in valuation and considering income of the assessee in pawn broking business. It is pertinent to note that though the assessee has disputed the quantum of surrender in his letter dated 18-02-2013, yet he filed another letter dated 26.04.2013, wherein the assessee has agreed to offer a sum of ₹ 50.00 lakhs on account of difference in stock and difference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. We have noticed that the assessee was ignorant of the basis under which the additional income of ₹ 83.33 lakhs was arrived. Hence the assessee has asked for the basis of arriving at the figure of ₹ 83.33 lakhs in his letter dated 18.02.2013 (within three days of survey operations). It appears that the assessee was not given the basis. Even at the time of hearing before us, the Ld D.R could not furnish the basis for the amount of ₹ 83.33 lakhs. Thus, it can be noticed that the revenue is unable to furnish the basis for determining the additional income of ₹ 83.33 lakhs and hence the assessee is also not aware of it. 10. However, the assessee could arrive at the additional income at ₹ 50.00 lakhs and agreed to offer the same, even though the assessee also did not furnish the details thereof. In any case, the fact remains that the basis of determining additional income of ₹ 50.00 lakhs is within the personal knowledge of the assessee. We notice that the said offer has been accepted by the AO, even though the assessee did not offer the said amount also in the return of income. Accordingly, the AO has made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
