TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mishkumar Shah by the AO in asst. yr. 1992-93 on the ground of unexplained investment in acquiring valuable household items. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common, we heard them together and deem it convenient to dispose of them together by this common order. 2. Before taking the matters, it is worth to decide M.A. No. 17/Rjt/2003 filed in ITA No. 690/Ahd/1996. This appeal was listed on 14th June, 2002. Notice sent to the assessee could not be served upon her for want of proper address. The appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution by our order dt. 19th June, 2002. The assessee has submitted her application that there is no change of address. She might be out of station for some period when notices were sent to her and, therefore, service could not be effected upon her. She submitted that otherwise there is no wilful negligence on her part. She prayed that the order in ITA No. 602/Ahd/1996 be recalled and the appeal be heard and decided on merit. The learned Departmental Representative opposed the request of the assessee and relied upon our order. 3. On due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, while filing her returns she has not included Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 in asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94. During the assessment proceedings, it was contended by the assessee, Shri Amishkumar that at the relevant time he was a young man 21 years of age. He had in fact not done any business activity in the shares and had not earned any income. The AO was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 50,000 in asst. yr. 1992-93 and the difference of Rs. 3,78,200 between admitted income of Rs. 5 lacs and disclosed income of Rs. 1,99,218 in asst. yr. 1993-94. Similarly, the difference between the returned income and the income disclosed during the statement recorded in the case of Ranjnaben Shah had been added at Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 in both the assessment years, respectively. 5. Dissatisfied with the additions, both the assessees carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). It was contended that disclosure statements were extracted from the assessees under force and coercion. It was also contended that the assessee, Amishkumar had in fact not done any business in shares and no evidence whatsoever either relating to dealings in shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinction between the two terms "estoppel" and "admission" as well as the evidentiary value of retraction of confession. According to the learned counsel, the difference between the admission and estoppel is a marked one. Admissions being declarations against an interest are good evidence but they are not conclusive and a party is always at liberty to withdraw admissions by proving that they are either mistaken or untrue. On the strength of Hon ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1963 AIR p. 1094, the learned counsel submitted that a retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a Court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon without corroborations; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaken by the assessee except simple denial what other evidence can be produced by the assessee. The evidence ought to have been collected by the Revenue during the search in support of the disclosure statements. Had the Revenue found any material and then obtained a disclosure from the assessees, then the assessees might not have been able to retract from their disclosure statements. But additions made only on the basis of disclosure statements normally should not be confirmed in the absence of corroboration. In the eyes of law the general rule of practice is that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession only without any corroboration. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Revenue ought not to have made the additions. We allow these appeals of the assessees and delete the additions of Rs. 50,000, Rs. 3,78,000 in the case of Amishkumar N. Shah in asst. yr. 1992-93, and Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 in the case of Smt. Ranjnaben Shah in asst. yr. 1992-93. 10. ITA No. 2046/Ahd/1996: In this appeal the Revenue is only disputing deletion of an addition of Rs. 53,500. This amount was added by the AO on the ground that the assessee had made unexplained investment in acquiring household item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
