TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on for additional evidence filed by the assessee. Combined reading of section 132(4) and Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) would clearly show that immunity is available if the income is surrendered during search and the manner of earning such income is also disclosed and the assessee based on such dis closure paid tax on the same. In the case before us, after having made surrender, the assessee simply retracted from the statement and did not include the amount of surrender in the return of income. The income was included through revised return which has to be accepted by the Assessing officer because same was late. In any case the revised return was furnished only when the assessee was fully cornered during the assessment proceedings. In addition some more items of income were also found to be concealed particularly in respect of platinum and silver jewellery. Therefore, it is a clear case of concealment and penalty has been rightly levied and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.164 of 2014 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 15-9-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. FATEH DEEP SINGH, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Jain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 132(4) of the Act on October 30, 2006. Thereafter, jurisdiction over the appellant was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (DCIT), Central Circle I, Chandigarh, under section 127 of the Act through order being effective from February 9, 2007, as a consequence of search. The assessment proceedings were initiated on June 24, 2007, through issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act for the preceding six years, namely, with effect from the assessment year 2001-02 onwards. Notice under section 153A of the Act was issued requiring the assessee for filing the return of income in consequence of the search proceedings. In pursuance thereof, return of income dated July 31, 2007, was filed at ₹ 1,06,48,173 containing the amount from regular sources of income amounting to ₹ 48,27,928 and the balance amount of ₹ 58,20,245 attributable to the discrepancies found and after reconciling with the corroborative material facts containing material particulars. A questionnaire was issued on June 4, 2008, to the assessee asking for reasons for variance of the declaration made being ₹ 2.50 crores whereas charged to tax was ₹ 58 lakhs. Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record. 5. A perusal of the application for additional evidence filed before the Tribunal (copy appended as annexure A.21) shows that the assessee had tried to produce affidavits of certain customers to show that it was their gold which was lying with the assessee. Further, through the additional evidence the stock of diamond jewellery lying with the assessee is sought to be established as belonging to the suppliers one of which was M/s. Ira Diamond. We find that not only these affidavits but also the statement of stock furnished by M/s. Ira Diamond are only a result of an afterthought and an attempt to show which otherwise does not appear to be existing on facts. The search was conducted at the premises of the assessee on October 27, 2006, and the assessee had made a statement on oath under section 132(4) of the Act on October 30, 2006. The assessee, while admitting unaccounted income of ₹ 2.5 crores, had, inter alia, stated as under : I have gone through the provisions and understood the same. I did consult my legal adviser on the said provisions. Therefore, I hereby state that the following assets have been found in excess than recorded in my re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same is without any merits on the following grounds : (i) The assessee has not declared the surrendered amount which was offered by him for taxation in his statement recorded under section 132(4) during the course of search and seizure operation. (ii) He has not disclosed accurate particulars of taxable income in his return of income filed for the assessment year 2007-08. (iii) The assessee has made attempts to avoid taxes by way of furnishing a revised valuation report prepared by some unknown person in absence of any authorised officer of the Department. (iv) The assessee has retracted from his statement which was recorded during the course of search and seizure operation. He was specifically asked regarding the genuineness and authentication of valuation report prepared in his presence and also in presence of two independent witnesses. (v) The assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of bogus claim of receipt of consignment, receipt of goods from customers and claim of a calculation mistake in valuation of jewellery. (vi) The assessee has also made a wrong statement that the whole stone jewellery and silver items were disclosed in VDIS 1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return under sub-section (1), or in pursuance of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.' The above clearly show that right to file the revised return is available only if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein. In the case before us, there is no justification at all in revising the return. Firstly, the assessee surrendered the income during search on account of excess cash and stock then retracted from the same and submitted before the Investigation Wing that value of diamond jewellery is correct and some other mistakes are there. But no good reasons have been given after having accepted excess cash and stock of excess gold and diamond jewellery. Even valuation and the process of valuation by S/Sh. Bhartesh and R. K. Gupta was accepted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) as noted above. In this regard we recall the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court (by three judges) in case of G. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
