9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which has no evidentiary value? (B) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that statement rendered by the assessee at time of survey u/s. 133A does not become the sole material to rest the assessment more so when the assessee has retracted the same by producing material evidence in support of such retraction and on the other hand revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such admission? 2. Issue pertains to addition of sum of Rs.20 lakh as undisclosed income of the assessee. Brief facts are that sometime in the month of March, 2005 when the employees of the assessee firm were travelling on a scooter carrying on cash of Rs.20 lakhs, they were robbed. An FIR to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on 31.3.2005 when he was going to deposit this amount to the account of some shroff at Umreth. The assessees explanation that cash of Rs.20/- lacs robbed from his employee was out of withdrawal of Rs.24/- lacs from bank account of M/s. Neelam Construction on 25.3.2005 was not accepted by the A.O. on the ground that when his statement was recorded during the survey proceedings, he admitted that this amount was out of his unaccounted income. The other ground for not accepting the assessees explanation was that in the books of account impounded at the time of survey there was no account of shroff at Umreth. Assessee however, during the appellate proceedings was able to show that Shroff was assessees creditor and the total borrowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn in those case laws is not applicable to the facts of this case. 4. From the record, we notice that assessees explanation was that such amount was being carried for being deposited with Angadia and that same was withdrawn from the account of a sister concern from which bank account a total sum of Rs. 24 lakhs was withdrawn a few days back. Residue thereof represented this sum of Rs.20 lakhs. Assessing Officer as well as higher authorities have given cogent reasons for rejecting such theory. When cash was admittedly found in possession of the employee of the assessee, it cannot be stated that additions were made on the basis of bare statement recorded under section 133A of the Act. Additionally explanation of the assessee was found to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
