9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it was submitted by the ld. AR that during the post search investigations, Sh. Vijay Makhija in his statement recorded u/s 131 never confirmed the admission made by Sh. Prakash Makhija in latter's Statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has relied on the observations made by the ld. CIT(A) with regard to Ikrarnama. However, there is nothing in the Ikrarnama which points towards any investment made by Sh. Prakash Makhija and Sh. Vijay Makhija in the mines. It was accordingly submitted that mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal which is apparent from record and goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal may be recalled for afresh hearing. 3. It was fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal and thereafter the finding has been recorded at Para No. 10 of its order which reads as under:- "10. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on the record. The assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search has admitted that he and his brother, Vijay Kumar Makhija had made an investment of Rs. 40,00,000 in the said mines and surrendered a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 each in his and Vijay Kumar Makhija's hands. The statement of Vijay Kumar Makhija was also recorded during post-search investigation u/s 131 wherein he has confirmed the surrender so made by his brother Prakash Makhija. Further, during the course of search, an original Ikarnama dated 17.09.2010 has been found which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the document. In the course of the search, the assessee made certain admissions, especially with respect to the amounts invested. The later retraction made more than a year and three months later when this return was filed on 15.01.2013 i.e. stating Jagdish Panjwani was not the owner of the mines was not conclusive. The Court is also of the view that the initial burden of showing that the transaction had not taken place and statement made earlier was wholly incorrect or that the documents recovered did not support the findings, was not dislodged. The concurrent findings of fact are, therefore, warranted. Concurrent findings of the ITAT are those of fact." 7. We, therefore, find that the order has been passed by the Tribunal after appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
