TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was deleted. DR could not show us any reason to deviate from him. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. Undisclosed income - addition arises from the disclosure made by Shri Rajiv Gupta on behalf of the entire group - main reason for deleting the addition was that overall disclosure was given on estimated basis and on actual subsequent analysis, it has been found to be on the lower side than what was disclosed - HELD THAT:- AO did not investigate that as there is any further income over and above the income disclosed sum by the assessee in his return of income such addition could not have been made. DR could not show any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). We also find Mr. Rajiv Gupta disclosed ₹ 10 crores ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. 1. This appeal is filed by the ld ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2009-10 against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, New Delhi, who vide order dated 13.10.2011 for the impugned assessment year granted relief to the assessee. 2. The ld AO is aggrieved with this and has preferred this appeal raising following three substantive grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 1,88,30,489/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed investment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 66,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,88,30,489/- on account of unexplained investment determined as per the seized documents. b. A sum of ₹ 66,88,489/- on account of disclosure made by the assessee of ₹ 10 crores whereas the income offered is less than the above sum and therefore, for differential sum the above addition was made. c. Addition of ₹ 58,69,000/- with respect non surrender of income of ₹ 49 lakhs in the return of income as per his statement of ₹ 9,69,600/- on account of unaccounted cash. 7. The order of the ld AO was challenged before the ld CIT(A) who deleted the addition and therefore, the ld AO is in appeal before us. 8. Despite notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier 10 occasions the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how us any reason to deviate from him. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 of the appeal is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 2 of the appeal relating to the addition of ₹ 66,88,489/-. The above addition arises from the disclosure made by Shri Rajiv Gupta on behalf of the entire group. In the hands of the assessee, disclosure of ₹ 10 crores was made but the assessee owned only ₹ 9,33,11,511/- in the hands of the assessee and therefore this difference was added. The ld CIT(A) has dealt with the whole issue in para 6 of this order at page No. 50 to 52. The main reason for deleting the addition was that overall disclosure was given on estimated basis and on actual subsequent analysis, it has been found to be on the lower side than what was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er:- 6. Finding on Ground of Appeal No. 13,16,17,18, 20 21;- The above ground relates to the addition made for ₹ 66.88.489/-. The basis of this addition arises from the disclosure of concealed income for ₹ 50 Crores made by Sh. Rajeev Gupta for the entire group in his statement recorded on 27.02.09 which also includes that of the assessee and which has subsequently been reiterated by Sh. Rajeev Gupta in the breakup provided in his letter to the ADIT on 09.06.2009 wherein the amount of ₹ 10 Crores has been declared on behalf of the assessee. The AO is of the view that the assessee has backtracked from his disclosure of ₹ 10 Crores and has made a disclosure in the returned income for only ₹ 9,33,11,511/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een argued that the admission on oath for income of ₹ 50 Crores (10 Crores in case of the assessee) is that of Sh. Rajeev Gupta and not of the assessee and therefore retraction if any is that of Sh. Rajeev Gupta and not that of the assessee. Reliance in this regard has also been placed on the decision in cases of Pullangode Rubber 91 ITR 18(C); Anoop Kumar 147 Taxman 26( ASR). Considering the totality of the arguments it is observed that the assessee has shown a total income of more than ₹ 10 Crores which is inclusive of an amount of ₹ 9,33,11,51 l/-which is on account of income representing documents seized during course of search. Thus it is case where the statement on oath made at the time of search, though by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
