2013 (2) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Addition on the basis of statements made u/s 132 (4) during the course of search - ITAT reversed the decision of CIT(A) and sustained the addition made by AO - Held that:- In the present case no material has been produced by the appellant/assessee to show that the admission made by him was incorrect in any way. On the other hand, it is the assessee who is insisting that it is for the department to corroborate the statement of admission made by him and until and unless the department corroborates the same, the statement cannot be relied upon. We are afraid that is not the correct position of law. The admission once made can certainly be retracted, if the circumstances permit, and it can also be shown to have been made under some mistake or to be otherwise incorrect. But, the onus would be on the maker of that admission. In this case it is the appellant/assessee who has admitted and surrendered a sum of Rs.1.75 crores as his undisclosed income. It was incumbent upon him to show that he had made a mistake in making that admission and that the said admission was incorrect. He had access to all the documents which has been seized in as much as the copies had been supplied to him.

However, he did not produce anything to establish that the admission was incorrect in any way. That being the position, the appellant/assessee cannot resile from his earlier statement made on 10-11.11.2005 and 21.11.2005. Although, appellant submitted that the letter dated 09.01.2006 was not an afterthought in as much as the ground for the same had been made in the statement recorded on 21.11.2005. We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The reason being that there is no mention of any documents in the letter dated 09.01.2006.

As decided in statements recorded u/s 132 (4) are clearly relevant and admissible and they can be used as evidence. In fact, once there is a clear admission, voluntarily made, on the part of the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence at the hands of the Revenue. See Pullangode Rubber Products Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [1971 (9) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus issues raised pertain merely to appreciation of evidence, which the Tribunal has appreciated correctly - against assessee.