9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993. During the course of survey, the statement of the assessee was recorded and in that statement the assessee agreed to declare an income of Rs. 2 lakhs for the accounting year 1993-94 so as to cover investments out of books of accounts in cash, diamonds and immovable properties. Thereafter, the assessee addressed a letter on 10th July, 1993, and another letter on 16th July, 1993, to the AO in which the assessee furnished explanations in respect of sources of investment in diamonds and immovable property and the cash found with the assessee during the course of survey under s. 133A. In short, the assessee stated that additional income to be declared worked out to Rs. 72,539 only. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income for as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re me, the learned Departmental Representative argued that the learned CIT(A) seriously erred in holding that the AO had not furnished any corroborating evidence. The AO had relied upon the assessee's own statement and there could not be any better evidence to support the assessment of the entire sum of Rs. 2 lakhs. The learned Departmental Representative further argued that the assessee cannot, after having deflected the Departmental enquiry by making additional disclosure, go back on his words and offer much smaller amount for assessment. For this purpose, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of Tribunal, Mumbai, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1996) 56 TTJ (Mumbai) 21 : (1996) 59 ITD 29 (Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... long back. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative also placed reliance on the judgment reported in V. Kunhambu Sons vs. CIT (1996) 131 CTR (Kar) 396 : (1996) 219 ITR 235 (Kar). 6. On consideration of the matter, I see considerable force in the arguments of the assessee. In this case, statement was recorded during the course of survey on 1st May, 1993. Soon thereafter, the assessee explained the factual position as per its letter dt. 10th July, 1993 and 16th July, 1993, and pointed out that the additional income to be disclosed was only Rs. 72,539. No defect was noticed in these letters of the assessee so much so that the assessee's return of income filed on 24th Aug., 1994 was accepted. Thereafter on 23rd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
