TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material before the A.O., which supported the contents of the statement. In the absence of such material, coupled with the fact that it is recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee himself had surrendered a sum of ₹ 69,59,000/- and ₹ 75,00,000/- in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The A.O. failed to co-relate the disclosures made in the statement with the incriminating material gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non assigning of reasons - HELD THAT:- We find that the notices issued by the A.O. are contrary to the laws laid down in the case of PCIT-I Vs. Kulwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see as per statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts in brief are that a search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee. During the course of search, certain documents were seized. A statement of the assessee was recorded in which the assessee admitted and surrendered income on behalf of self and others. The A.O. therefore made addition of ₹ 2,25,00,000/-. Against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions deleted the addition. Now the revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additions. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er mental pressure and tired. Therefore, to buy peace of mind, he accepted and declared ₹ 3 crores in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 8. Now we take up appeal of the assessee in ITA No.299/Ind/2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 9. The assessee has taken a legal plea that the notice initiating the penalty is bad in law. Therefore, the proceedings initiating penalty are vitiated. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the notice. Notices are enclosed along with synopsis. For the sake of clarity, contents of the written synopsis are reproduced as under: 10. Ld. D.R. opposed the submissions and submitted that the penalty proceedings have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
