TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the statement. Learned counsel urged that that letter was written on 21.12.2007. However, the actual reply to the show cause notice is silent as to the date. This itself casts doubt as to whether the retraction was in fact made or was claimed as an afterthought. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case both the CIT (A) and ITAT were correct in adding back the amount of ₹ 63,33,260/- after adjusting the expenditure indicated. The explanation given by the assessee, in the course of the appellate proceedings, that the surrender was in respect of a certain portion of the receipt which had remained undisclosed or that some parts of it were supported by the books, is nowhere borne out as a mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of survey. It was asked to show cause why the said unaccounted amount, disclosed by Mr. Goyal on its behalf, should not be added back to the total income. The assessee alleged that the surrendered amounts were not voluntary and bona fide and the same was obtained in illegal and arbitrary manner, and in the absence of any evidence or material in relation to the surrender, the surrender made during the course of survey was also retracted. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation and added back the amounts. The CIT (A) gave partial relief by taking into account the debit entries from the gross receipts, thus reducing the total taxable income. 4. The assessee appealed; the Revenue too cross appealed. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istence or otherwise of other materials. The Court then went on to hold as follows in the facts and circumstances of that case: 16. Since in the present case, the respondent-assessee has been able to explain the discrepancy in the stock found during the course of survey by production of relevant record including the excise register of its associate company, namely, M/s. D.M.W.P. Ltd., we are of the opinion that the AO could not have made the aforesaid addition solely on the basis of the statement made on behalf of the respondent-assessee during the course of survey. 6. We notice that in Anil Bhalla (supra), the Court was concerned with search and seizure operations. It dealt with an addition made under Section 69C of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the approach of the CIT - as affirmed by the ITAT - cannot be faulted. The discretion vested in the Revenue authorities in content and character is not radically different in the case of a survey or in the case of search and seizure operations as is evident from a plain reading of Section 133A (3) and 132(4). Whereas the latter uses the expression may examine on oath , the former says that the authority may record statement which may be useful for, or relevant to in proceedings under the Act. This provision, Section 133A (3) had undergone further amendment inasmuch as the Revenue is precluded from taking any action under Section 133A (3) (ia) or Section 133A (3) (ii), i.e., from impoundin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause was issued to it. For the first time, in reply to the show cause notice it faintly urged that the statement was not voluntary and sought to retract it. The reply, a copy of which has been placed on record, undoubtedly makes reference to some previous letter retracting the statement. Learned counsel urged that that letter was written on 21.12.2007. However, the actual reply to the show cause notice is silent as to the date. This itself casts doubt as to whether the retraction was in fact made or was claimed as an afterthought. 11. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case both the CIT (A) and ITAT were correct in adding back the amount of ₹ 63,33,260/- after adjusting the expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
