TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not available to the Revenue as the assessee was the purchaser of the land. CIT(A) has rightly adopted this view holding that provisions of section 50C were not applicable on the assessee being the purchaser of the property and also during the survey proceedings no documentary evidence was found which may prove that the assessee has made payment over and above the registered valuation of the property. In lack of any incriminating material, no addition was called for by the AO Addition on the basis of the provision of 50C - difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchased, as discussed hereinabove, made the remaining addition as unexplained investment in the properties. This was done on the basis of the surrender made by the partner at ₹ 52 Lac. - HELD THAT:- The law with regard to an admission or confession is well settled. An admission may be a strong piece of evidence but it is not conclusive evidence. The veracity of such evidence can be judged vis-a-vis the material evidence and the obtaining circumstances of the case in which it was made because it can always be explained by the person who has made such confession or admission. In the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench Indore (in short the Tribunal ) in ITA No.490/Ind/2013 (Assessee's appeal) and ITA No.412/Ind/2013 (Revenue's Appeal) for the Assessment Year 2007- 08 claiming the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 23,02,500/- made on account of unexplained investment merely on the ground that the aforesaid unexplained investment which was voluntarily accepted by the assessee later got retracted by him? (ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 28,97,500/- made on account of unexplained investment merely on the ground that the aforesaid unexplained investment which was voluntarily accepted by the assessee later got retracted by him? (iii) Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 3,72,79,410/- by taking net profit rate on unaccounted sales even when the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence of the corresponding expenses? 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income on 15.11.2007 for the assessment year 2007-08 declaring total income of ₹ 1,41,350/-. A s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of ₹ 30,30,100/-. As regards the addition of the amount of ₹ 10,64,500/- for bogus credit entries, the said amount was also restricted by the CIT(A) to ₹ 3,30,000/- on the basis of the material on record revealing that the remaining accounts amounting to ₹ 7,34,500/- were substantiated by proof of refund through banking channel, copies of registers, cash receipt vouchers and money receipt etc. which were also got verified along with the books of accounts. Thereafter, dissatisfied with that order dated 28.3.2013, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was registered as ITA No.412/Ind/2013. The assessee also preferred an appeal being aggrieved by a part of the order of the CIT(A), which was numbered as ITA No.490/Ind/2013. The Tribunal vide common order dated 31.1.2018 dismissed both the appeals thereby upholding the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, the Department is in present appeal. 5 . Before this Court, the appellant has restricted the challenge to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to the extent of deletion of the amount of ₹ 23,02,500/- and ₹ 28,97,500/- made on account of unexplained investments and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said statement was retracted on the very next day of completion of survey proceedings by way of duly signed affidavit, signed by all the partners. Further, except for the retracted statement of the partner, there was no other material with the Assessing Officer to make such an addition. The addition was made on the basis that the sale consideration which was shown in the two sale deeds dated 28.09.2006 and 09.10.2006 was ₹ 31,01,000/- and ₹ 31,10,000/- whereas the Stamp Valuation Authority had determined the market price of this land at ₹ 42,69,500/- and ₹ 42,44,000/- respectively, resulting in the difference of ₹ 23,02,500/-. Applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, the addition was sought to be made. However, the provisions of Section 50C of the Act were not available to the Revenue as the assessee was the purchaser of the land. With regard to the substantial question of law No.(i) raised by the appellant, the learned Tribunal while considering the cross-appeals for the Assessment Year 2007- 08 came to hold as under:- 22 . Apropos Ground No.1 of Revenue's appeal challenged the Ld. CIT(A) finding deleting the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision and judgments discussed above and in the given facts and circumstances of the case find no inconsistency in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 23,02,500/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act. In the result Revenue's ground no.1 is dismissed. 8 . Nothing was shown that the aforementioned finding recorded by the learned Tribunal was erroneous or perverse in any manner. 9 . Adverting to the addition of ₹ 28,97,500/-, in respect of which the Revenue has claimed that substantial question of law No.(ii) arises in the appeal, the learned Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer after making addition of ₹ 23,02,500/- on the basis of the provision under Section 50C of the Act being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchased, as discussed hereinabove, made the remaining addition at ₹ 28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. This was done on the basis of the surrender made by the partner at ₹ 52 Lac. The said amount of ₹ 23,02,500/- was subtracted from the surrender made by the partner to the tune of ₹ 52 Lac to arrive at the remaining addition of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have nothing to differ from the view taken by the learned Tribunal in relation to the deletion of addition of ₹ 28,97,500/-. 11 . We do not find any force in the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to question of law No.(i) and (ii) that since the said unexplained investments were voluntarily accepted by the assessee and later on the assessee got them retracted, therefore, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the said additions and so was the Tribunal not justified in affirming such findings. The law with regard to an admission or confession is well settled. An admission may be a strong piece of evidence but it is not conclusive evidence. The veracity of such evidence can be judged vis-a-vis the material evidence and the obtaining circumstances of the case in which it was made because it can always be explained by the person who has made such confession or admission. In the present case, a perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the aforesaid two additions of ₹ 23,02,500/- and ₹ 28,97,500/- towards unexplained investments were made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of the statements given during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
