TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake the addition, if any, in the proper hands. In my view, the learned CIT(A) has, thus, rightly deleted the additions in question. The Ground No. 1 is, thus, rejected. Reopening proceedings u/s 147 - money for purchase of the plot - escaped assessment - addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Department in the present matter under consideration that during the proceedings u/s 147, the additions in question were connected with the issue for which reopening was initiated or the AO had brought on record any reason to show that the impugned additions were otherwise linked with the enquiry in regard to disclosure of alleged payment of on money. The learned CIT(A) has, thus, rightly deleted the additions in question made on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer authorities and the decisions relied upon by them. 3. Ground No. 1: 3.1 The assessee had filed return of income for asst. yr. 1999-2000 on 11th Oct., 1999 declaring total income at Rs. 60,780. The return was processed under s. 143(1) on 25th Jan., 2000. For asst. yr. 2000-01, the return was filed on 17th Oct., 2000 declaring total income at Rs. 1,11,940. The return was processed under s. 143(1) on 19th Feb., 2001. Thereafter, a survey under s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 28th March, 2001,during which his statement was recorded. In this statement, the assessee had disclosed that he had paid Rs. 1,00,000 as on money for purchase of a plot in the name of his father, Shri Hari Ram Jain. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no detail whatsoever available in the statement itself that how the alleged on money of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has supported his findings with the decisions in the cases of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. VS. State of Kerala Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), Lal Chand Agarwal vs. Asstt. CIT (IT(SS)A No. 2259/Jp/1996), Mustaq Ahmed VS. Asstt. CIT (IT(SS)A No. 19/Jp/1998) and the letter dt. 20th March, 2003 of CBDT issued from the File No. 280/2/2003-IT (Inv.) making clear that confessions taken during the course of survey/search, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessee while filing of return of income. In these circumstances, the assessment in survey/search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his observation that the action of the AO travelling beyond the reasons recorded for which reopening of the assessment under s. 147 cannot be held justified, especially when the AO had not brought on record any reason to show that the impugned addition was otherwise linked with the enquiry in regard to disclosure of alleged payment of on money. I do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order in this regard as though in view of the amendment in the provisions of s. 147 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, the AO could not only assess or reassess the escaped income in respect of which proceedings under s. 147 have been initiated but also any other income chargeable to tax which may have escaped assessment and which comes to his knowledge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
