Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2010 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (6) TMI 675 - AT - Income TaxAddition made on account of surrender on account of renovation of showroom and cash - AO solely relied on the statement recorded on the date of survey in the night, which was retracted by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- As assessee has retracted and for which letter was duly filed with the competent authority, the amount of surrender was also not offered in the return of income. It was upon the AO to find out the actual cost of the building and renovation to substantiate the statement given by the assessee wherein surrender was made. The statement so recorded by the survey team was also alleged to be under influence, coercion and under a confused state of mind. In the letter of retraction the factual position was stated assessee to the effect that her husband, an acute diabetic patient, was made to sit in the shop by the visiting officials for long hours and was feeling very much disturbed/depressed, when she was called in the night and asked to sign the statement of surrender, she had no other choice except to sign the statement recorded by the visiting officials. In the facts and circumstances, there may not be any evidence of coercion or undue influence being exercised by the Departmental officers, but the existence of duress/disturbed state of mind at such a crucial moment cannot be ruled out. It is an undisputed fact that no documents or papers were found during the course of survey indicating any expenditure having been incurred by the assessee for renovation of the showroom or any cash of the assessee being left at the showroom of M/s. Vishal Jewellers, from where M/s. Vishal Gold and Precious Stones Pvt. Ltd. was carrying on its business. The High Court in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1972 (12) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] observed that "it is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that an admission made by him previously is in fact not correct and true. Such admission raises a presumption against the person making the admission but such presumption is rebuttable." We found that categorical finding was recorded by the CIT (A) to the effect that no material was brought on record by the AO to substantiate that any expenditure on renovation was incurred by the assessee during the AY 2005-06, nor the AO has made any reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer to find out the correct state of affairs, and it was merely on the basis of statement given by Smt. Usha Rani Talla in a disturbed state of mind, which cannot be made the basis for making the addition. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) for deleting the additions made merely on the basis of statement, without bringing on record any material much less a cogent material. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
|