TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. In case no incriminating material was found during the course of search whether the Assessing Officer can make addition merely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) ? - Following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Signature Builders [ 2021 (1) TMI 945 - ITAT INDORE ] and also respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) which is based on the examination of facts, settled judicial precedence and direction given in circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes and thus hold that he has rightly deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO solely based on the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act without referring or placing any nexus to the incriminating material seized during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act. Thus, revenue fails to succeed in the sole ground - Ground no.1 of revenue s appeal stands dismissed. - IT(SS)A No.211/Ind/2019, IT(SS)A No.212/Ind/2019, IT(SS)A No.213/Ind/2019, IT(SS)A No.214/Ind/2019, IT(SS)A No.216/Ind/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2021 - Hon ble Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Hon ble Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Girish Agrawal, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd builder. During the course of search statement of Mr. Arun Hariramani was recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, on 03.09.2016 and was required to furnish the explanation/clarification regarding the incriminating documents discrepancies found during the course of search on various premises of the group. In reply and after discussing with other directors/promoters and with their consent, he admitted total undisclosed additional income of ₹ 25,00,00,000/-. He also stated that he will give the breakup of the surrender income on a near date. Thereafter on 27.10.2016 during the post search proceedings, the statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani, who is also said to be one of the key person of the group, was recorded on oath on 27.10.2016 and he also confirmed the disclosure of unaccounted income of ₹ 25,00,00,000/- and also submitted bifurcation of ₹ 25,00,00,000/- under the name of 17 assessees. In this statement Mr. Vijay Hariramani has not referred to any assessment year for which the income has been offered nor any source of such surrendered income nor any specific asset/investigation/expenditure were made. The bifurcation of surrendered amount was more in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he addition after appreciating the fact that the alleged surrender of ₹ 25,00,00,000 by the key person of the M/s. Ramani Group was in the nature of tentative /estimated surrender and M/s. M/s. Ramani Group has offered undisclosed income of ₹ 24,27,91,005/- to tax and has filed the application before Income Tax Settlement Commission in the names of those assessees for which the incriminating material were related and thus honoured the surrender. The ld. CIT(A) further referring to various judicial decisions held in favour of the assessee stating that since no incriminating material pertaining to assessee was found during the course of search nor any reference was made to any seized document before making the impugned addition, in the assessment order, addition for ₹ 2 cr. was not called for, merely on the basis of statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act. Reference was also made to circular No.286/2/2003/IT(Investigation) dated 10.03.2003 and circular No.286/98/2013-IT(Investigation-II) dated 18th December, 2014. 8. Aggrieved revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of Ld.AO and also s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and opportunity to explain and justify it as the statement under section 132(4). It is assessee's liability to explain that the statement admitted during search is untrue. (v) The statement recorded under section 132(4) of the act is not simply a confession of the assessee in context with issue enumerated during the course of proceedings. It is piece of evidences in terms of Indian Evidence Act. It is not retraction from the commitment but it is deviation and avoidance of evidence gathered by the department. Reliance is placed on -.e-. the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT cited at 642 of 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 wherein it has been held that It is well settled that admissions constitute best price of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true. The statement recorded under section 132(4) is an evidence to be used by the department and declaration made by the assessee is itself evidence in its possession. The statement recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ried out u/s. 132 of the Act of the Act. The Income-tax Act, wherever thought fit and necessary has conferred such powers to examine a person on oath. Those powers are therefore has been expressly provided. In this context Section 132(4) of the Act enables an authorized officer to examine a person on oath. Such a Sworn statement _ made uJs.132 (4) of the Act, thus can be used as evidence under the Act. A statement recorded uJs. 132(4) of the Act has a far reaching consequell(;e because if it is proved to be false which the assessee only knows or believes to be false or the assessee does not believe it to be true, it is assessee's liability to explain and prove it. If any coercion or force are not proved, and assessee has voluntary declared undisclosed income and has-not made retraction within three month of the statement recorded, onus lies with the assessee to prove that the declaration is made out of misconception. The assessee has not made such efforts. The learned Ahmadabad Bench in the case of DCIT v. Bhogilal Moolchand 96 lTD 344 held that statement given under section 132(4) is not conclusive and person can retract under certain circumstances. However, time gap between s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precedence no addition was called for in the hands of assessee merely on the basis of statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act without having reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search. Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that M/s. Ramani Group duly honoured the surrender of ₹ 25,00,00,000/- made during the course of search but offered it only name of those concerns/assessees for which incriminating material was found. Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission has duly accepted the surrender of ₹ 24,27,91,005/- and the tax paid thereon. Copy of the order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission is enclosed in the paper book filed on 10.02.2021. Further Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to following written submissions filed on 18.12.2020: A. Statements on the basis of which addition of ₹ 2 crores has been made are vague, bald and adhoc without having any nexus to incriminating material found during the course of search 1. During the search proceedings, statement of Shri Arun Hariramani (assessee) was recorded u/s 132(4) at the business premises of Ramani Ice-cream Company Private Limited which comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it has been mentioned by the authorized officer that Shri Arun Hariramani and other family members, partners, proprietors and directors of the companies could not explain the seized documents. This is an incorrect fact. The correct facts are On reference to the statement of Shri Arun Hariramani recorded u/s 132(4) at the factory premise on 03.09.2016, from question no. 1 to 24 authorized officer enquired about the seized documents which were duly explained by him. 1. The authorized officer grossly erred in stating that Shri Arun Hariramani failed to explain the seized documents. 6. The fact that declaration of additional income has been made by one person on behalf of others is corroborated from the question number 2 raised by the authorized officer to Shri Vijay Hariramani. Relevant extract of this question is reproduced as under 2. The authorized officer in the question itself has stated that additional income was declared by Shri Arun Hariramani on behalf of other family members, partnership firms, companies and proprietorship concerns. 7. In response to the question number 2 raised in the statement recorded at his residence, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de does not relate to any specific assessment year 12. Summary of the above mentioned statements is as under Particulars Statement of Shri Arun Hariramani (assessee) Statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani Statement of Shri Prakash Hariramani Disclosure of additional income of ₹ 25 crores Statement recorded on 03.09.2016 at the factory premise E-1/200, Arera Colony, Bhopal [PB 102-103] Made a lump sum disclosure for himself and on behalf of other family members, proprietorship concerns, companies and partnership firms comprised in the group. It was also stated by him that he would provide assessee-wise and year wise breakup of the amount so disclosed. Statement recorded on 27.10.2016 at his residence E-1/95-96, Arera Colony, Bhopal [AO page 10] Tentative figures for breakup of the additional income were based on rough analysis and memory, based on seized records subject to modification/correction/rev ision with respect to individual assessee and quantum of income Statement recorded on 03.09.2016 at his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh): It was held that it is true that an admission made by an assessee constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but if the assessee contends that in making the admission he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or on untrue facts such an admission cannot be relied upon without first considering the aforesaid contention. c. Hon ble Jurisdictional Bench of Indore ITAT in the case of Ultimate Builders ITA No. 134/Ind/2019 order dtd 09.08.2019 Para 21, 25, 26, 27 [CLPB 34]39-40 ] While arriving at the above decision, Hon ble ITAT Bench referred to its own decision in the case of Sudeep Maheshwari ITA No. 524/Ind/2013 order dtd 13.02.2019. For relevant portion refer Para 6 [CLPB 49 ] 16. The declaration was not made with reference to any specific incriminating paper/papers or documents and was neither with reference to any undisclosed asset or income found during the course of search. It was a vague declaration made under duress. In this respect reliance was placed on the decisions of i. CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport [2000] 163 ITR 403 (AP) ii. CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made on the basis of which lump sum disclosure of ₹ 25 crores has been made by Shri Arun Hariramani for himself and on behalf of other family members, partnership firms, partners, proprietorship concerns and companies comprised in the group. Thus there is no nexus between the incriminating material/documents seized and the addition made. 3. In the post search proceedings, statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani was recorded at his residence on 27.10.2016. In this statement he gave tentative breakup for the disclosure made by Shri Arun Hariramani. [AO page 10] From the reply of Shri Vijay Hariramani, it is evidently clear that no reference to any incriminating material/seized documents has been made on the basis of which tentative breakup has been given. It is pertinent to mention here that the break up given is a. Subject to rough analysis and memory, based on seized documents b. Breakup is tentative c. Subject to modification/correction/revision with respect to individual assessee, quantum of income 4. In the statement of Shri Prakash Hariramani in response to question number 31 he has stated as reproduced above, it is clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Indore ITAT in the case of Kamta Prasad Dwivedi IT(SS)A No. 182 to 185/Ind/2016 order pronounced on 19.09.2018 g. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573, the decision in the case of Pr.CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 526 and various other decisions, has consistently held that in absence of any incriminating material found as a result of search, assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A is not in accordance with law. [CLPB ] In the decision of Meeta Gutgutia (supra), SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court by giving a reasoning reported at [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) SLP dismissal 02.07.2018. [CLPB ] h. In addition to the decisions of Kabul Chawla (supra) and Meeta Gutgutia (supra), reliance is also placed on several other decisions as listed below (i) Pr. CIT v. Lata Jain, 384 ITR 543. (ii) 211 Taxman 61 (Del) CIT v. Chetan Das Laxhman Das. (iii) 352 ITR 493 (Del) CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia. (iv) 380 ITR 571 (Del) CIT v. Kurele Paper Mills (P) Ltd., dt. 6-7-2015. (v) 241 Taxman 440 (Del) CIT v. MGF Automobiles Ltd. (vi) ITA No. 634/2015 Pr. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 2 crore merely on the basis of the disclosure of a third party made in the statement recorded during the search operations. 15. It is well settled proposition that the strict rules of evidence are not attracted in relation to income tax proceedings and further there is nothing like res judicata or estoppel. In order to tax any income under the Income-tax Act, it is required to be shown that such income has accrued to the assessee or is deemed to have accrued. Income is not earned in air or vacuum. The income presupposes receipt or movement of funds, which are revenue in nature. It is settled law that normally, the onus is upon the revenue to show that any income has accrued to the assessee, particularly when the assessee is disputing the claim of the revenue. In this regard, a gainful reference may be made to the decision rendered in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT (57 ITR 21 SC). In the instant case, search party did not bring any cogent material to establish assessee is having any source of income other the reported sources. No incriminating material supporting the offer made by Shri Arun Hariramani including for his family members, partnership firms, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional income was declared by Shri Arun Hariramani on behalf of other family members, partnership firms, companies and proprietorship concerns. No addition can be made on the basis of statement of third party. 7. There are no provisions under the Income-tax Act which authorize any person to accept any amount as undisclosed income on behalf of someone else. It is only under the specified provisions of the Act that a person can act as representative assessee as per provisions of section 160. In the instant case, Shri Vijay Hariramani and Shri Prakash Hariramani are not representative assessees under the above mentioned provisions of the Act. 8. Disclosure made to buy mental peace. Search started on 30.08.2016 and was concluded on 04.09.2016 but was extended upto 27.10.2016 for uplifting of prohibitory order. There was tremendous pressure with distress and disturbed state of mind he had no other alternative but to surrender to the dictates of search party in duress. Consequently, the declaration so made, has no valid/ cogent ground, basis/ supportive plausible material and as such is unfounded being indefensible in the eyes of law. 9. Though admission is the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani. Assessee retracted this disclosure by not including it in the return filed for the impugned year. [PB 01] 10.5 It would be relevant to point out that the statements which are recorded by administering oath are presumed to be carrying truth in view of the provisions of section 181 and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code which provide for imprisonment if the false statement is given. When it is so, no one would like to be punished knowingly and, hence, it is but logical to accept a sworn statement or the statement taken on oath as revealing the truth. 11. For any retraction to be successful in the eyes of law the maker has to show as to how earlier recorded statements do not state the true facts or that there was coercion, inducement or threat while recording his earlier statements. In such cases, retraction is possible. In any case, for the A.O. to add the income disclosed or confessed, the same must be corroborated with materials on record and if the assessee can demonstrate on the basis of facts that statement was not correct, there is no question as to why retraction should not be allowed. In the instant case, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r making addition is the statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani (not the assessee) which had been retracted. 14.3 Ld. AO made the impugned addition on the foundation of bare husk of the statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani made in the course of search operation, who attributed so, on behalf of the assessee without there being any incriminating material found in the course of search for its corroboration. 14.4 Ld. AO being quasi-judicial authority is not competent to draw inferences in vacuum, without the base of incriminating material relevant to the disallowance made, evidence and relevant provisions, as has been done, in the present case. Ld. AO is required to act in a judicial manner while framing assessment order under section 153A rws 143(3). 14.5 Ld. AO being quasi-judicial authority must not base his findings on no-material or no-evidence. This is a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of a. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) b. Omar Salay Md. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y waiver of the legal right as much as the legal liability to be assessed otherwise than according to the mandate of the law. 2. Principles of estoppels will not operate against the Income-tax Act as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.MR.P Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC). [CLPB 267-275 ] Hence, mere admission of additional income would not automatically entitle the assessing officer to assess the same, if the assessee disputes the same subsequently with corroborative evidences. 3. Principles of estoppels were also dealt by Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya 310 ITR 310 (Bom) as held in Para 33 [CLPB 283 ] E. Application filed by the Ramani Group before the Hon ble Settlement Commission 1. An application has been filed before the Hon ble Settlement Commission in the case of Ramani group on 24.12.2018. This application has been accepted u/s 245D(1) vide order dated 04.01.2019 in which additional income of ₹ 24.27 crores has been offered to tax. Details of the additional income declared along with the name of the group concerns is tabulated below [PB 05-06] Sr. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mechmen [2015] 60 taxrnann.corn 484 (MP HC) 8. Sat ish Nema IT(SS)A No 149, 150 152/Ind/2016 (ITAT Indore) 9. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi HC) 10 Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) 11 Naresh Kumar Verma [2013] 32 taxmann.com 280 (ITA T Chandigarh) 12 Sunil Aggarwal ITA No. 224 of2003 (Delhi HC) 13 Chandra Kumar Jethmal [2015] 55 taxmann.com 292 (Guj. HC) 14 Surinder Pal Verma [2004] 89 ITO 129 (ITAT Chandigarh - TM) 15 Anoop Kumar [2005] 147 taxman 26 (ITAT Amritsar) 16 Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar [2015] 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj HC) 17 V. Mr. P. Firm [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) 18 Balmukund Acharya [2009] 176 Taxman 316 (Born.) 19. CBDT Instruc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 M/s. Ramani Ic-Cream Co. Ltd. 2.00 13 M/s L.P.J Enterprises 1.50 14 M/s. Ramani Infrastructure 2.00 15 M/s Top-N-Town 1.00 16 M/s Aaditya Food Products 2.00 17 M/s Shree Balajee Builders Developers 4.00 All total 25.00 14. While giving above bifurcation Mr. Vijay Hariramani has stated that he looks after the financial matters of the group. Financial records of the group are voluminous. Detailed analysis of various years of the assessee-wise, assessment-wise with respect to quantum is not possible right now and substantial time will be needed to examine the records once copy of seized records provided. 15. We further note that following 5 concerns/individuals of the Ramani Group filed an application on 24.12.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome from bank interest etc. The total income was shown at ₹ 7,23,3901- which has been accepted by the A.O., however, the A.O. has made addition of ₹ 2 crores on the ground that the said income was surrendered u/s.132(4) and its retraction in the return is not acceptable. 4.2.1 It has been established that the appellant has no source of income, and filed the nil return of income. In the family, the main business is the business of manufacturing sale of ice cream which is being carried on in the name of Ramani Ice Cream Co. Pvt Ltd. under the brand name Top-NTown Ice Cream . On 30.08.2016, search operation were conducted at the factory and the other business premises and simultaneously search were also conducted at the residential premises of directors living jointly in the house at E-1, Arera Colony, Bhopal. The search and seizure operation was completed on 04.09.2016. In the search, without reference to any assessment year, or any specific paper an adhoc surrender of income of ₹ 25 crores was made in respect of the entire group by Shri Arun Hariramani in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 03.09.2016/04.09.2016. The relevant part of the statement i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of above tentative/estimated/projected bifurcation given by Vijay Hariramani. It may be mentioned that there is no mention of any assessment year to which the adhoc surrender income relates. It is also mentioned that there is no specific asset/investment/expenditure of the assessee found unexplained to the extent of ₹ 2 crores and there is also no evidence at all that the assessee has earned income ₹ 2 crores from undisclosed sources in previous year relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. There is also no unexplained investment/expenditure to the extent of ₹ 2 crores found to have been made/incurred in the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2017-18. 4.2.4 The A.O. accepted the returned income for all the assessment years from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17, however, in A.Y. 2017-18, he made the addition of ₹ 2 crores without any corroborative evidence or material simply on the basis of a rough/projected/tentative bifurcation given by Vijay Hariramani in his statement as reproduced above. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Amman reported in 390 ITR 189 (Mad) held that if there is no corroborative documentary evidence, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders Yours faithfully, Sd/- (S. R. Mahapatra] Under Secretary (Inv. II) F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.It) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes Room No. 265A, North Block New Delhi, the 18th December, 2014 1.All Principal Chief Commissioners of Income Tax 2.All Chief Commissioners of Income Tax 3.All Directors General oflncome Tax (Inv.) 4.Director General of Income Tax (I CI), New Delhi Subject: Admissions of Undisclosed Income under coercion/pressure during Search/Survey - reg. Ref: 1) CBDT letter F.No. 286/S7/2002-IT(Inv.ll) dt. 03-07-2002 2)CBDT letter F.No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.II) dt. 10-03-2003 3)CBDT letter F.No. 286/98/2013-IT(Inv.ll) dt. 09-Q1-2014 Sir/Madam, Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of the CBDT that some assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income during Searches/Surveys opriducted by the Department. It is also seen that many such admission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue . Further in the case ofKrishanlal Shivchand Rai Vs. CIT 88 ITR 293 (P H) held that it is an established principle of law that the party is entitle to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is in fact not correct and true Further in the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT ITAT Delhi Bench reported in 100 TTJ (Del) 929/935 held that it is to be noted that it is not possible to lead direct evidence of the use of pressure tactics. It is to be gathered from the evidence mostly circumstances. The Appellate Tribunal in para 8 of page 933 further held that it is true that authorized officer carrying on search u/s.132 is entitled as per the statutory provision, to record statement of the person searched u/s. 132(4) of the I.T Act and use that statement for the purpose of assessment. All the same person carrying the search is a person possessing some authority and, therefore, the assessment wholly and exclusively based on confessional statement procured by the revenue authority then, there was no need to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to be given in law as a part of his defence Further in the case of Kailash Ben Manharlal Chouksi V s. CIT reported in 220 CTR 1381147 para 26 (Guj) held that We are, therefore, of the view that merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not have been subjected to such additions unless and until, some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. We are also of the view that from the statement recorded at such odd hours cannot be considered to be a voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is led contrary to such admission. Hence, there is no reason not to disbelieve the retraction made by the A 0 and explanation duly supported by the evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in making addition of ₹ 6 lakhs on the basis of statement recorded by the AO under s. 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the retraction made by the assessee Further in the case of R.P. Monga Vs. DCIT reported in 269 ITR (AT) 1 (Del) held that in the case of income tax proceedings, the confession statement made u/s.132(4) could be used in assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the findings of the AO and inclined to agree with Ld. CIT(A). Further, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar (supra) has held that statement made during search must be correlated with records, which are found and if there is no ambiguity, explanation given by the assessee should be taken into consideration before making assessment. Thus, based on these decisions, we are of the opinion that the addition made by merely based on statement u/s 132(4) without linking to the seized books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jeweller) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Now the ld. Settlement Commission vide its order dated 22-04-2019 has already accepted the said income offered by these two firms. We have carefully perused the order of the ld. Settlement Commission wherein this amount of ₹ 45,977/- was also part of the undisclosed income offered by these two firms for the A.Y. 2014-15. The total undisclosed income was offered at ₹ 28,71,319/- which was divided between two firms Mis. Bihari Lal Holaram, partnership firm and Mis. Lakhi Gems. in ratio of 95% : 5%. Finally, the said amount was accepted as offer to tax by these two firms as per the order of the ld. Settlement Commission. Once this amoun of ₹ 45,977/- has already been offered for taxation in the hands of the two partnership firms as per the order of the ld. Settlement Commission dated 22-04-2019 then the addition in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is deleted. Therefore, the addition made by AO amounting to ₹ 2,00,00,0001- 1S Deleted. Therefore, the appeal on these grounds is Allowed. 19. From perusal of finding of Ld. CIT(A) and the facts placed before us it is clear that firstly surrender of ₹ 25,00,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s 153A of the Act the impugned income was not shown in the Income Tax Return on the basis of the assessee s observation that there was no incriminating material seized during the course of search which could support the impugned amount. During the course of assessment proceedings also the addition made by the Ld. A.O was purely on the basis of statement given during the course of search. Nowhere in the assessment order the Ld. A.O has brought on record any incriminating material or loose paper seized during the course of search having its nexus with the addition made on the basis of statement. We further observe that in one of the group concern M/s Ultimate Builders ITA No.134/Ind/2019 order dated 9.8.2019 similar issue came for adjudication and this Tribunal on the basis of the facts of the case as well as relying on the judicial pronouncements deleted the addition since the same were made without referring to the incriminating material found during the course of search. The finding of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders has been reproduced in the preceding paras while dealing with the similar issue raised in the case of M/s Signature Builders. Since the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect . Reliance was also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat). Similarly reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.), wherein it was held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission . Reliance was also placed on Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 24. We, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Signature Builders (supra) and also respectfully following the decisions referred hereinabove find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) which is based on the examination of facts, settled judicial precedence and direction given in circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
