9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Sidh Mohalla, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar, for a cost of Rs. 1,35,000 and had spent about Rs. 70,000 on construction of shops in the year 1993. It was also stated that the cost of construction of the shops was Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 45,000 and the plot was purchased for Rs. 35,000 at Naugaja Road and agreed to surrender the same in the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice under s. 148 and in response to such notice, the assessee filed the return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded by the AO on 16th Aug., 2002, and 27th Aug., 2002 wherein he explained that at the time when DDIT (Inv.) recorded his statement, he was under tremendous amount of mental stress and the statement was given in a confused state of mind. It was further stated that he was in a confused state of mind, which is evident from the fact that he had never purchased any plot at Naugaja Road. In fact, the plot was purchased at Gujja Peer, Globe Colony, on 24th Feb., 1990 instead of 1993 and registered deed relating to this property was also furnished before the AO. It was also stated that the assessee had wrongly stated that the construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the AO has made an addition purely by relying on the confessional statement recorded by the DDIT (Inv.). He was fair enough to concede that there was no independent evidence to support the income surrendered before the DDIT (Inv). 2.3 The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions, which were made before the authorities below. He submitted that the Department does not have any independent or corroborative evidence to support the income disclosed before the DDIT (Inv.). He further stated that the assessee had given the statement before the DDIT (Inv.) in a most confused state of mind as he could not face such a senior officer like DDIT (Inv.). The fact that such statement was given in a confused state of mind is fully evident from the other evidence about the purchase of property in different years, construction of shops and other property purchased by his sons. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (2000) 163 CTR (AP) 403 : (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP), where it has been held that mere confess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfused state of mind when his statement was recorded by the DDIT (Inv). Such income surrendered in the confessional statement is not supported by any independent and corroborative evidence. Thus, under these circumstances. addition could not have been made merely by relying on the confessional statement. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramdas Motor Transport, the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, in the case of R.P. Locks Company vs. Dy CIT, decision of Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in the case of Maheshwari Industries vs. Asstt. CIT. In the present case, the assessee had demonstrated with positive material and documentary evidence that the statement given before the DDIT (Inv.) was factually not correct. Now the documentary evidence produced by the assessee shows that plot was purchased on 24th Feb., 1990 and a copy of registered deed was also placed before the AO. Two shops have been constructed before 4th July, 1991. Since the investment in the plot and shops did not fall in the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1994-95, no addition for the same could have been made under s. 69 of the IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier assessment years and Rs. 8,400 for the last two assessment years. The Revenue is aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A). Hence, these appeals before the Tribunal. 3.1 The learned Departmental Representative stated that additions have been made by relying on the confessional statements given by the assessee made before the DDIT (Inv.) and there is no independent evidence to support the case of the Revenue. 3.2 The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. 3.3 I have heard both the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. I have already held that at the time when statement was recorded by the DDIT (Inv.), the assessee was indeed in a confused state of mind. Here also, the assessee has been able to establish that he had in fact received rent of Rs. 300 per month in respect of each shop from two tenants. No further independent enquiries have been made by the AO to find out prevailing rent in the market. On the other hand, the assessee had filed certificates from the two tenants stating that rent of Rs. 300 per month being paid and the same has been raised to Rs. 350 per month in the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made before the DDIT (Inv.) should not be acted upon for the purpose of making the addition. However, the AO rejected such submissions and made the addition by relying on the confessional statements. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the submissions that this addition is based on the confessional statement recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) and, therefore, the same should be upheld. 4.2 The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 4.3 I have heard both the parties and considered the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. I have already upheld the contention of the assessee that the statement recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) was indeed in a confused state of mind. Here also, the assessee has amply proved that he had nothing to do with the investment in the said property and the same had been purchased by his two sons. The factory belonged to his son Sh. Naresh Kumar. Ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
