9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncriminating material/evidence. CBDT circular is binding on the revenue authorities as also followed by the CIT(A) in one of the Assessment year as above. The order of the CIT(A) is perverse to the facts on record. Accordingly, the addition made in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 is deleted. Addition of amount against bearer cheque - assessee s signatures were appearing on the backside of this alleged cheque - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) failed to establish or prove in the light of the remand report of the AO and any other material evidence such as, report of the forensic expert, to corroborate the fact of fake/authenticity of the signatures on the back side of the disputed bearer cheque and its encashment by the assessee at a later date. In view of the matter, we hold that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has infirmity and perversity to the facts on record on the issue of addition on account of amount against bearer cheque having fake/forged signatures of the appellant assessee. We accept the grievance of assessee as genuine and hold that the Id. CIT(A) was not justified confirming the aforesaid addition - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T. A. Nos. 56 And 57/Asr/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue heads and adjudicated together for convenience and brevity. 5. The Assessing Officer (In short the AO ) stated that the surrender was made by the assessee at the time of operation of locker on persuasion by the search team and this offer was also correlated to expense of court fee of Rs. 19.64 lacs incurred by the assessee when a suit of recovery was filed against Mr. Neeraj Puri. The AO was not satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee vide letter dated 16.12.2014 20.02.2015 and hold as not found tenable. The AO has mentioned that the assessee had surrendered Rs. 20,00,000/- and admitted u/s 132(4) as undisclosed unaccounted income for the A.Y. 2010- 11 and now the plea for Rs. 10 lacs out of declared amount of Rs. 20 lacs, correlating to fee paid to court and getting refund, is nothing but an afterthought. As per the AO, by correlating Rs. 10 lacs out of surrender of Rs. 20 lacs with the issue of court fee, clearly shows the intention of the assessee to avoid the tax liability on Rs. 10 lacs by way of retracting the surrender. As per the AO, the assessee has not filed any evidence in support of submission and therefore, these deserve to be rejected. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1961. In the light of these provisions what you want to state in respect of your state of affairs so far as income, investment in movable immovable assets or any other issue relevant therein, is concerned. Ans: I have gone through all my state of affairs, assets found at the time of search, any kind of discrepancy of inadvertent in nature which may have crept in the accounts of my concerns, the transactions contained in the loose documents, I hereby offer a voluntary disclosure of Rs. 30 Lakhs for the F. Y. 2011-12 relevant to A. Y 2012 13. This offer is subject to no penalty prosecution. This income has been earned from my business which could not be accounted for in the regular books of account. I further offer a sum of rupees 20 lakh as cash investment made for depositing court fee in cash during the period F. Y 2009-10. This was also made out of some undisclosed in advertent error. This offer is made to buy peace of mind and as a law abiding tax payer I expect a lenient view, since this was unintentional. 5 Q:- Do you wish to say anything in addition or in modification to what you have stated earlier? Ans:- I have given the above statement to the best ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the assessee which needs to be decided on the basis of the facts in the case of the assessee. Under the facts circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the arguments of the' AR on this issue are not found acceptable specially in the light of the statement of the assessee reproduced above making a voluntary surrender of Rs. 20,00,000/- for the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the AO is found sustainable and hence upheld. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse objected to the order of the Ld. in confirming the addition of Rs.10 lacs and 30 lacs in respect of the Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, merely going by assessee s offer made during search, without corroborating the surrender amount with any incriminating document found in search, nor thereafter during assessment proceedings. The counsel contended that in the course of Search, the assessee was coerced by the search party to make an on the spot surrender of Rs.20 lacs, simply because a voucher of Govt. treasury was found depicting refund of court fee of Rs.19.64 lacs, which was earlier paid in this year. However, against notice u/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,00,000/- was not fully honored. The assessee has filed justification before the AO for having restricted the surrender in his letter dated 16.12.2014, filed along with the return in compliance to the notice u/s 153A. As per the assessee, the actual quantum which warrants to be surrendered was Rs. 10 lacs. The AO has reproduced the copy of the letter dated 16.12.2014 also in the assessment order where it was mentioned by the assessee that while finalization the return, after apprising the seized documents vis a vis regular books of accounts and saving bank account and other facts, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs were found short to be explained with support of various expenses/outgoing incurred in respect of Assessment Year under consideration. As per the assessee, this amount which was found not to have been accounted in the books, has now being offered to tax in the return of income filed in compliance to 153A of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has endorsed the finding of the AO by observing that the period of one month was sufficient for the assessee to go through the seized material and appraise his state of affairs to arrive at a conclusion that the income has not been fully recorded, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o followed by the CIT(A) in one of the Assessment year as above. 12. In view of the above, and following the Chandigarh Tribunal and CBDT circular, we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse to the facts on record. Accordingly, the addition of 10,00,000/- and 30,00,000/- made in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 is deleted. 13. In the next issue, the appellant challenged pertains confirmation of the addition of Rs.41 lacs, by the Id. CIT(A) on the facts of the case, as not justified and legally wrong. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Id. CIT(A), while confirming the aforesaid addition of Rs.41 lacs, erred to infer that the assessee s signatures were appearing on the backside of this alleged cheque, in spite being denied by assessee, and the said denial by the assesse is an admitted fact on record as evident from the endorsement by the AO in her remand report. The Counsel contended that the Id. CIT(A), ought to have sought a report of the forensic expert, to corroborate the fact of fake/authenticity of the signatures rather than himself holding that the signatures on the cheque were not fake but of this assessee. 14. It is seen from the impugned order that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
