TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority conferred. In the case on hand, statement recorded on 29.12.1999 from the son of the assessee under Section 132(4) of the Act is not corroborated by any material document. Admittedly, Revenue has also not confronted the assessee, with the said statement of his son. If that be the case, it can be safely concluded that, there was no material documentary evidence, to substantiate and corroborate the statement of Mr.Natarajan, son of the assessee. If the assessee makes a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act, and if there are any incriminating documents found in his possession, then the case is different. On the contra, if mere statement made under Section 132(4) of the Act, without any corroborative material, has to be given credence, than it would lead to disastrous results. Considering the nature of the order of assessment, in the instant case characterised as undisclosed and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that mere statement without there being any corroborative evidence, should not be treated as conclusive evidence against the maker of the statement. Thus we are of the considered view that the Revenue has not made out a case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant, the value of immovable properties at ₹ 31,00,000/- purchased in the name of daughter-in-laws at TS No.3096, 3097 and 3908, Nelmandi Street, Pudukottai; (ii) Addition of ₹ 80,000/- towards excess stock of 215 gms. of gold jewellery found in the business premises; (iii) Addition of ₹ 2,90,000/- towards excess stock of 39 Kgs. of Silver articles; (iv) Addition towards difference in cost of construction of ₹ 83,700/-; (v) Addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- towards inadequate drawings; and (vi) Levy of surcharge of ₹ 2,10,360/- 3. After hearing the parties, on issue No.1 stated supra, vide order dated 05.07.2002 in ITA No.270/2001-2002, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central II, Chennai, substituted a figure of ₹ 5,00,000/-, in the place of ₹ 31,00,000/-, which relates to the assessment in the hands of the appellant, regarding immovable properties stated supra, in paragraph 2 of this order. 4. As regards the second issue, addition of ₹ 86,000/- towards the excess stock of 215 grams of gold jewellery found in the business premises, accepting the explanation of the assessee and by observing that the alleg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, to substitute the figure of ₹ 2,00,000/- towards insufficiency in drawing for domestic expenses. 8. As regards the last issue, regarding levy of surcharge of ₹ 2,10,360/-, by observing that in view of the first schedule which clearly imposes surcharge on taxes levied under Section 113, the appellate authority, dismissed the plea of the appellant, on the levy of surcharge. By common order dated 05.07.2002, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Central II, Chennai, has ordered and granted the reliefs, as stated supra. 9. Aggrieved by the same, Smt.S.Jayalakshmi Ammal and others have, filed IT (SS) A No.146/Mds/2002 for the block Assessment years 1990-91 to 2000-01. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle I, Trichy, has also filed an appeal in I.T. (SS) A No.154/Mds/2002, for the above said years. Both the appeals have been taken up together. 10. As regards the first issue of addition of ₹ 5,00,000/-, the Tribunal, at paragraph Nos.5 to 9, thoroughly discussed and held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified, in sustaining addition of ₹ 5,00,000/-. On this aspect, we have given our careful consideration, to the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000/-. So saying, the Tribunal, has deleted ₹ 5,00,000/-, under the head undisclosed income. 13. Coming to the cost of construction, to the extent of ₹ 83,700/- held, in favour of the assessee, i.e. addition towards difference in cost, the Tribunal going through the materials on record, has noticed that the Assessing Officer has found that the Valuation Officer has estimated the cost of construction to the extent of ₹ 2,99,700 and whereas, the assessee had disclosed the cost of construction at ₹ 2,16,000/- only, and therefore, difference of ₹ 83,700/- has to be treated, as unexplained investment for the block period. On this aspect, the appellate authority has granted relief for ₹ 44,956/-. While considering the addition towards difference in the cost of construction, the Tribunal has noticed that no books of account was found during the course of search. Valuation report has been obtained, after the search. In fact, no material was available on the asset of construction of the building. In the absence of any material, the Tribunal held that there cannot be any addition, with regard to the so called improvement to the property. So saying, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are detailed, as hereunder. 4.0 This issue has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in para 7.1 to 7.5 of the assessment order. During the course of the search in the business premises of the appellant, the stock-in-trade of gold jewellery was inventorised and determined at 12.978 Kgs, whereas the stock of gold jewellery as per the Stock Register was found at 11.054 Kgs. Thus, there was excess stock of gold jewellery amounting to 1.924 Kgs. The appellant reconciled the difference as under: Correct totalling of weight of jewellery found as per panchanama 12048 gms (-) Order Jewellery 519 gms Repair Jewellery 410 gms 929 gms 11119 gms (+) Own jewellery included in order jewellery and repair jewellery 150 gms 11269 gms (-) Jewellery belonging to others not entered into the repairs register at the time of search (refer reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty cannot be sustained on the ground the said addition was made based on the statements recorded during the search from the assessee and his son and seller of the property. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in not holding that the above said statements recorded at the time of search from the purchaser of the property is to be treated a corroborative evidence in support of the admission made by the assessee and his son and consequently the addition of ₹ 31 lakhs is to be sustained. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition made on the difference in cost of construction cannot be sustained on the ground that it was not made on the basis of material seized at the time of search. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the addition made with respect to difference in stock of gold of 215 grms cannot be sustained on the ground that the said difference was reconciled. 19. While adverting to the above, we are of the considered view that, for deciding any issue, against the assessee, the Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
