TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng more than bare suspicion to support the assessment or addition. In the present case, though the revenue s case is based on disclosure of the assessee stated to have been made during the search u/s 132(4) of the Act, there is no reference to any undisclosed cash, jewellery, bullion, valuable article or documents containing any undisclosed income having been found during the search. As decided in KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ 2008 (9) TMI 525 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not have been subjected to such additions unless and until, some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. From the statement recorded at such odd hours cannot be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal is right in deleting addition of ₹ 35 lakhs towards benami investment in the name of Shri Daulaji? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the amount investeed initially has been rotated in the construction projects, when both the projects, namely, Vivekanand Complex and Brindavan Developers, were undetaken simultaneoulsly? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in applying principles of telescoping for reducing additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Commissioner? (iv) Whether, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained investment in purchasing and reconstruction of flats, household expenses and unexplained gifts. ₹ 18,80,000/- iii. On account of unexplained receipts ₹ 2,98,980/- iv. On account of unaccounted purchases and undisclosed profit ₹ 4,20,682/- 2. A search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) was carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee and various documents were found disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Notice was issued and after following due procedure under the law, the Assessing Officer had made the following additions to the declared undisclosed income of the assessee: [I] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) towards undisclosed household expenses by applying the principles of telescoping. He submitted that once disclosure statement under Section 132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings is given, the same cannot be retracted as the same is an admissible evidence against the person making the disclosure. 4. Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the revenue has failed to refute the assessee s retraction by way of any concrete proof. He submitted that other than the alleged disclosure u/s 132(4), no undisclosed cash, jewellery, valuable article, property details, assets or books or documents or any other material which could be considered a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lery, bullion, valuable article or documents containing any undisclosed income having been found during the search. 5.1 In the case of Kailashben Chokshi (supra), this Court has held as under: 22. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties at great length and considered the submissions. We have also gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. It is true that in normal circumstances this Court would not interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the explanation tendered by the assessee would be considered by the authorities below. It is also to be seen as to whether an addition made is merely based on the statement recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the Assessing Officer and explanation duly supported by the evidence. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in making addition of ₹ 6 lacs on the basis of statement recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 132(4) of the Act. The Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the retraction made by the assessee. 6. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal and we do not find any infirmity in the said order. Learned advocate for the revenue is not in a position to produce any material on record so as to warrant interference by this Court. The deletion of addition on account of household expenses and cloth transaction has been rightly confirmed by the Tribunal. We also find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
