Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 321 - AT - Income TaxAddition on the basis of admission during the course of survey - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee retracted the statement recorded u/s.133A of the Act vide its letter dated 1.4.2009 stating that the Income-tax team visited the assessee’s residence, when he was conducting pooja on 13th day of death ceremony of his grand father and he was also starting abroad on the same day. He required to proceed to abroad at 3.30 P.M. and he was in tension by the disturbance of the Income-tax team at the time of pooja. Therefore, he wanted to get rid of the Income-tax team and agreed to offer ₹ 30 lakhs as income. Later, he came to know that in a confused state of mind, he was wrongly offered ₹ 30 lakhs as income and he filed a letter to the Income-tax Officer to withdraw the offer. In our opinion, the addition cannot be sustained only on the basis of admission during the course of survey. This plea of the ld. AR is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013 (6) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT ), wherein the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) has been confirmed, by observing that sec.133A does not empower IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition u/s 40A - AO identified the parties i.e. Shri Dhakshinamoorthy and Ramanathan, to whom the payments were made by the assessee in violation of sec.40A(3) - Held that:- Regarding the identity of the recipients, there is no dispute. The amount of ₹ 1,00,000/- to be considered as agricultural produce in their hands and sec.40A(3) does not apply. The contention of the ld. AR is that these two parties are cultivators. They are not only agriculturists but also traders. Being so, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Keerthi Agro Mills (P) Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 1014 - ITAT COCHIN) is not appropriate. In that case, there was a payment of ₹ 23,17,32,420/-, which is purchases of paddy by cash payment in respect of 14,744 parties. The assessee has never given the name and address of the parties and not produced the parties before the assessing authority. Identity was also not proved and the enquiry could never progress into the next level, where whether the occupation of these persons was farming or not. The AO considered 75% of ₹ 23,17,32,420/- and disallowance was worked out at ₹ 17,37,99,315/- by invoking the provisions of sec.40A(3) of the Act. However, in the present case, the parties are identified and the amounts are also quantified. Being so, the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal cannot be applied. More so, occupation of Shri Dhakshinamoorthy and Shri Ramanathan is not solely agricultural produce and they are trading also. There is no dispute in this fact and the provisions of Rule 6DD cannot be applied - Decided against assessee
|