Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 245 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-BSearch and seizure operation - Addition on account of disclosure made u/s 132(4) - Income from transport business - HELD THAT:- We find that at the time of search no evidence or material or assets, immovable or movable properties were found which supports the disclosure. The assessee had retracted from the said disclosure which has not been accepted by the Department. It is true that simple denial cannot be considered as a denial in the eyes of law but at the same time, it is also to be seen (that) the material and valuable and other assets are found at the time of search. The evidence ought to have been collected by the Revenue during the search in support of the disclosure statement. It is true that an apparent statement must be considered real until it was shown that there were reasons to believe that the apparent was not the real. Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal. Therefore, the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities. Thus, we apply the ratio of apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad [1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] i.e., test of human probabilities, we do not find any material on record on which basis it can be said that the disclosure of the assessee for Rs.16 lakhs is in accordance with law and in spirit of s. 132(4). Hence, we find that the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition. The second ground is pertaining to Rs. 4 lakhs on account of transport business. The AO made the estimation of Rs. 4 lakhs. The CIT(A) has sent back this matter to the file of AO with certain direction. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). In view of the fact, the order of CIT(A) is confirmed. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
|