TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 (9) TMI 952 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ) echoing the very principle. The Revenue fails to point out any exception on facts or law to the contrary. We uphold the CIT(A) order in these circumstances and reject the Revenue’s sole substantive ground. - Decided against revenue - ITA No.752/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.D.R., Respondent by : Smt. Urvashi Sodhan, A.R. ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, arises from order of the CIT(A)-I, Surat, dated 22.12.2008 passed in case no.CAS-I/104/08-09, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons of understatement of income of ₹ 2,13,07,700/- qua that stated as an unaccounted one during survey and profits declared with the return hereinabove. The assessee replied that out of the survey disclosure, he admitted a sum of ₹ 1,04,11,752/- which was reduced to ₹ 98,92,240/- after claiming depreciation. He emphasized that there was no business activity carried on in the last three years and the income in question had been disclosed as per the relevant cash book and gross receipts. All this failed to convince the Assessing Officer. He framed a regular assessment on 27.6.2008 verifying assessee s details with the impounded material; particularly Annexure BF-1 to B-10 and did not specifically reject his explanation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hasan V/s CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj). However, on perusal of the above judgment it is clear that the facts of the above case are totally different from the facts of the appellant's case and that the above judgment deals with altogether a different issue than the one under consideration. The decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T, Ahmedabad in the case of Whiteline Chemicals (supra) is also not applicable on facts. 2.4.2 Further, the above discussion clearly brings about the fact that That the impounded material being Annexure BF-1 to BF-10 do not indicate earning of unaccounted income bv the appellant of ₹ 3.12.00,000/-. That the said impounded material only indicated earning of additional income to the tune of ₹ 1,43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record to the effect that the impounded material show higher income. 2.4.3 It is clear from the contents of the Assessment Order that the A.O. has not led any cogent material/evidence on record or even the impounded material to contend that the above submissions of the appellant are factually incorrect. If the impounded materials being Annexure BF-1 to Annexure BF-10 indicate earning of unaccounted income to the tune of ₹ 3,12,00,000/- by the appellant, the A.O. should have given the working of such figure of unaccounted income earned by the appellant to the tune of ₹ 3,12,00,000/- bv referring to the specific impounded material. As can be seen from the contents of the Assessment Order, the A.O. has not given anv such work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Vs. State of Kerala (91-ITR-18) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of assessment. However, mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey, was wrong and in facts, there was no additional income. The verdict of the Supreme Court should serve to conclude all arguments regarding the retraction made by the assessee. In the case of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of documents found during the survey, and the documents clearly showed the true extent of undisclosed income as ₹ 1,43,68,982/- which has been duly disclosed by the assessee both in his individual capacity (Rs.1,04,11,752) and in the hands of his HUF (Rs.42,15,000). Therefore, no addition can be made of the difference between the sum disclosed in the statement and the sums declared in the return of income. Hence the grounds of appeal are allowed. 6. Heard both sides. Records perused. We have already narrated relevant facts of the case in preceding paragraphs. The Revenue s sole argument is for restoring impugned unaccounted income addition of ₹ 1,71,92,996/- added in assessment order solely based on assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
