9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion raised before the lower authorities below by the assessee that the said amount was declared on ad-hoc basis, in our opinion it is away from truth because there was no retraction by the assessee from the date of survey to the filing of return of income to that effect - AO has not merely relied upon declaration made by the assessee in his statement recorded in the course of survey action whereas the assessee himself clarified the reasons due to which the additional income earned in the answer to Q. No. 11 which is reflecting in page 2 of the AO. Assessee placed reliance in the instructions dated 10-03-2003 issued by the CBDT wherein we note that in the said instructions the CBDT has advised CCIT and DGIT that no addition should be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business premises of assessee on 15-02-2013. The original return of income was filed declaring a total income of ₹ 1,25,77,230/- on 30-09-2013. According to the AO, the assessee declared additional income of ₹ 1,07,67,799/- on the basis of notings made on loose papers during the survey action. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee is not justified in offering an amount of ₹ 7,23,201/- towards errors and omissions and balance amount of ₹ 65,00,000/- (₹ 72,32,201/- - ₹ 7,32,201/-) should also been offered to tax in the return. Accordingly, the AO determined total income of ₹ 1,91,30,536/- vide its order dated 12-02-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he declaration made on account of error and omission by simply stating that no evidence was found. It is not a case of mere rejection of the explanation given by the assessee but a case where the antecedents of the assessee his conduct in doing business in past and present years has been brought on record through positive materials, which has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the assessee, to unravel the trick played to stop the digging and probing of facts by the survey party by making substantial declaration on error and omissions. Taking into account the totality of all the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the AO has correctly exercised his discretion and jurisdiction in dismissing the assessee's contention I find n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntire money disclosed in terms of impounded documents were offered in the return of income. He referred to an order dated 28-08-2019 of Kolkata Bench Tribunal and submitted that on similar facts, the Kolkata Bench Tribunal deleted the addition made thereon. Further, he referred to page No. 59 of the paper book and argued the CBDT instructions No. 286/2/2003 dated 10-03-2003 and submitted that the CBDT advised all the CCIT and DGIT there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department and no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income during the course of search and sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontention of AO was that the assessee offered ₹ 72,32,301/- to cover up the errors and omissions but however declared the same as ₹ 7,32,201/- in the return of income. The contention of ld. AR is that the said ₹ 72,32,301/- was declared only on ad-hoc basis to cover up errors and omissions and after verification and reconsideration the actual amount is only ₹ 7,32,201/- which is offered in the return of income. 7. We note that a statement of assessee was recorded on oath on the day of survey wherein the AO reproduced Q. No. 11 in its order in page No. 2. On perusal of same we note that the assessee conceded that there is an element of cash receipt which is not recorded in the regular books of account and not decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said instructions the CBDT has advised CCIT and DGIT that no addition should be made solely on the basis of declaration made by the assessee in the statements recorded during the course of survey. We find that the assessee himself explained how he earned the additional income of ₹ 1,07,67,799/- and to cover up such errors and omissions the assessee himself offered ₹ 72,32,201/-. It is noted there was evidence against the assessee in earning the said additional income and the arguments of that without there being any adverse material the addition made by the AO is invalid, in our view is not acceptable. Thus, the instructions of CBDT as placed reliance by the assessee is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
