9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 367X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced as under: Grounds of Appeal of Revenue: 1. The order of ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained expenditure/ investment. Date of pronouncement 02.08.2021 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal. Cross Objection for A.Y. 2012-13 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in not deciding the issue that the protective assessment made in the hands of appellant is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction because substantive assessment has not been made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Krishna Maruti Group and also at residence of the appellant on 21.10.2011. During the course of search, statement of the appellant was recorded and he has confirmed to be the controlling person in his capacity as director etc. to the various group companies. In his statement the appellant offered Rs. 100 crores as overall disclosure by the group ,as additional income, as follows, based on the documents seized during the course of search:- S. No. Company Name Financial Year Amt. (In Crs) 1. SKH Auto Components Limited 2004-05 1.61 2. SKH Auto Components Limited 2005-06 2.91 3. SKH Auto Components Limited 2006-07 2.91 4. SKH Auto Components Limited 2007-08 3.99 5. SKH Auto Components Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of appellant taking into account such disclosure during the course of search and also looking to the petition filed by one of the group company M/s HH Interior and Auto Components Ltd., before Settlement Commission. , 7.3 As mentioned earlier, the appellant raised various objections with respect to the said addition during appellate proceedings. It was disputed that the statement is unreliable as no oath was administered, statement recorded at midnight. In this regard, it is observed that there are two statements of appellant recorded in the process of search. First statement was recorded on 21- 22/10/2011 and Second statement of appellant recorded on 16.12.2011. In the first statement, all the pages have been signed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Flence the contention of appellant is not tenable in this regard. 7.6 The disclosure has been made on the basis of the seized documents and voluntarily by the appellant, therefore to argue that no corroborative evidence was found during search is not correct. 7.7 Further, the retraction has been made only vide letter dated 24.03.2014, whereas disclosure made during search on 21.10.2011 which was further confirmed during statement dated 16.12.2011. Therefore the argument of the appellant is not acceptable as sufficient time was available with the assessee and this retraction appears to be an afterthought. 7.8 During the appellate proceedings it was submitted that vide order u/s 245D(4) dated 05/09.02.2015 in the case of M/s HH Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee on the other hand relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that residuary surrender of Rs. 12 crore against unexplained expenditure/investment/assets was not specifically identified and before the settlement commission the assessee has already paid taxes on the enhanced income of Rs. 15.06 crore in the case of one of the group company. In our opinion, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is justified and we do not find any error in the same. Accordingly, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. 8. As far as cross objection of the assessee is concer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
