9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts relating to the case on hand are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of builders and developers. A survey action was conducted in the business premises of assessee on 15-02-2013. The original return of income was filed declaring a total income of Rs. 1,25,77,230/- on 30-09-2013. According to the AO, the assessee declared additional income of Rs. 1,07,67,799/- on the basis of notings made on loose papers during the survey action. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee is not justified in offering an amount of Rs. 7,23,201/- towards errors and omissions and balance amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rs. 72,32,201/- - Rs. 7,32,201/-) should also been offered to tax in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trick and the duty of the Court to ignore the pretence. In the case before me, the AO has unraveled the trick that was played by the assessee by removing one zero for the declaration made on account of error and omission by simply stating that no evidence was found. It is not a case of mere rejection of the explanation given by the assessee but a case where the antecedents of the assessee his conduct in doing business in past and present years has been brought on record through positive materials, which has not been satisfactorily rebutted by the assessee, to unravel the trick played to stop the digging and probing of facts by the survey party by making substantial declaration on error and omissions. Taking into account the totality of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offered Rs. 50 lacs as additional income basing on the same notings/jottings as referred in the year under consideration. He argued that the entire money disclosed in terms of impounded documents were offered in the return of income. He referred to an order dated 28-08-2019 of Kolkata Bench Tribunal and submitted that on similar facts, the Kolkata Bench Tribunal deleted the addition made thereon. Further, he referred to page No. 59 of the paper book and argued the CBDT instructions No. 286/2/2003 dated 10-03-2003 and submitted that the CBDT advised all the CCIT and DGIT there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal income in return of income at Rs. 1,25,77,230/- amongst which according to AO additional income is Rs. 1,07,67,799/-. The contention of AO was that the assessee offered Rs. 72,32,301/- to cover up the errors and omissions but however declared the same as Rs. 7,32,201/- in the return of income. The contention of ld. AR is that the said Rs. 72,32,301/- was declared only on ad-hoc basis to cover up errors and omissions and after verification and reconsideration the actual amount is only Rs. 7,32,201/- which is offered in the return of income. 7. We note that a statement of assessee was recorded on oath on the day of survey wherein the AO reproduced Q. No. 11 in its order in page No. 2. On perusal of same we note that the assessee conceded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed reliance in the instructions dated 10-03-2003 issued by the CBDT wherein we note that in the said instructions the CBDT has advised CCIT and DGIT that no addition should be made solely on the basis of declaration made by the assessee in the statements recorded during the course of survey. We find that the assessee himself explained how he earned the additional income of Rs. 1,07,67,799/- and to cover up such errors and omissions the assessee himself offered Rs. 72,32,201/-. It is noted there was evidence against the assessee in earning the said additional income and the arguments of that without there being any adverse material the addition made by the AO is invalid, in our view is not acceptable. Thus, the instructions of CBDT as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances in the case of Rohitaswa Das are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thereby, we hold the benefit of doubt as given in the said case cannot be extended to the present case. In view of the discussion made by us here-in-above, we find the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of AO and ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are dismissed.
11. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is consequential to the ground Nos. 1 to 4. Since, we dismiss ground Nos. 1 to 4, therefore, no adjudication is required for ground No. 5 and it is also dismissed.
12. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16th September, 2020. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
