Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 874 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTAdditions on the basis of statement made u/s 133A - Bogus income - duplication of income - Statement made voluntarily by the petitioner under Section 133A retracted - Held that:- Admittedly, the petitioner's main income is generated from transport business. The income from loose papers, so seized, indicated that certain payments were made to Tarachand Munim from transport business. This statement is now being rescinded by the petitioner and a new stand is being taken indicating that this money was used by the petitioner through Tarachand Munim for buying betel nuts and, therefore, there is duplication of this income since this value was already shown in the stock of betel nuts. We find that no documents has been placed before the Commission nor before this Court to show that there has been duplication of the income on purchase or sale of betel nuts. We are of the opinion that a statement made voluntarily by the petitioner under Section 133A of the Act can form the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the petitioner retracts his statement could not make his statement unacceptable. The burden lay upon the petitioner to establish that the statement made by him at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. In our opinion, this burden has not been discharged since no cogent evidence has been brought on record. In Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (1971 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME Court) the Supreme Court held that an admission is a piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Consequently, a statement made voluntary under Section 133A of the Act cannot be retracted unless the assessee files evidence to show that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and against the material on record. The mere fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax in his report has held that the statement given by the petitioner was on oath and therefore, it cannot be retracted is immaterial in the context of what we have said aforesaid. Levy of interest u/s 234B - In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Lal (2010 (10) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT ) interest is chargeable till the date of entertaining the application for settlement under Section 245D(1) of the Act and not till the date of the order passed by the Settlement Commission - Decided against assessee.
|