9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als) has erred in stating that there is a findings of Survey which showed substantial investment in house constructions and furnishings for which no declared source of income was available with appellant. 1.4 The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that there is no substantive evidence on record in support of addition to the income. 1.5 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating that a self declaration brings stop to further investigation by the assessing officer and ought to have considered the Circular binding on the assessing officer 1.6 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating that the self declaration was not made under coercion. 1.7 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in concluding the assessment solely on the declaration made by the appellant. 1.8 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining additions which are not based on any of the provisions of Income tax Act. 1.9 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to not have concluded the assessment without having considered the precedents relied. 2. The learned Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... producers which are not accounted in the books of accounts. In answer to question No.14 with regard to entries of cash payments for house construction as reflected in note book Nos.GK8, GK5 and GK 7, the assessee agreed that the construction of house was made out of cash receipts which have not been accounted in the books of accounts and that he would offer a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs each for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. In so far as the Assessment Year 2011-12 is concerned, the assessee honoured the commitment made in the statement made at the time of survey by declaring total income of Rs. 49,02,360/- which includes the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs declared at the time of survey under section 133A of the Act. However, for Assessment Year 2012-13, the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 14,22,180/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 1,13,347/- under Chapter VI A of the Act. 6. The AO, after making a reference to the statement given at the time of survey, proceeded to determine the total income of the assessee at a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. It is an admitted position that the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs determined as total income is only based on the statement re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not honoured for Assessment Year 2012-13 and no valid reasons have been given for not offering income in Assessment Year 2012-13 as declared at the time of survey. The CIT(A) also held that the plea of the assessee that the statement given at the time of survey was obtained by coercion cannot be true for Assessment Year 2012-13 and not true for Assessment Year 2011-12. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), asssessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee is almost identical to the submission as made before the lower authorities. The plea of the assessee was that the addition made purely on the basis of statement given at the time of survey cannot be sustained in the absence of credible evidence found at the time of survey which will show that the income declared at the time of survey was correct. Learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the statement given at the time of survey was given under coercion and undue influence. When a specific question was put by the Bench as to how in respect of the very same statement at the time of survey the assessee honoured t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 133A would not automatically bind upon the assessee CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain Income Tax Appeal No 634 of 2009, It was held the retracted confession can be reified only there is independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the statement Abdul Oayume Vs CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 It is settled law that though an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission to show that it is incorrect; 10. Learned DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the CIT(A) and relied on the following decisions: 1. Copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case of Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax V (2015) 56 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi) ITA No. 24 of 2015 dated 27/01/2015 2. Copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (C)-2, New Delhi V. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi) ITA No. 935 of 2016 dated 01/05/2017 3. Copy of the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Navdeep Dhingra V. Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee declared total income of Rs. 50 lakhs as agreed at the time of survey. It is also a fact that assessee had incurred expenses on construction of house outside the books of accounts. All these circumstances would show that the assessee cannot say that the statement made at the time of survey in so far as it relates to Assessment Year 2012- 13 upto 17.8.2011 was erroneous or was made in mistake. But in so far AY 2012-13 is concerned, the previous year would be the period between 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012. The date of Survey was 17.8.2011. As on the date of survey a period of 4 months and 17 days elapsed and therefore the income of Rs. 50 lacs declared for the whole year cannot be taken at the face value. It can hold good for proportionate period i.e., 137 days / 364 days x Rs. 50 lacs, which will be a sum of Rs. 18.77 lacs (approx.). The assessee already declared a sum of Rs. 15,35,527 as gross total income and after claiming deduction under chapter VI A of the Act of Rs. 1,13,347 declared a total income of Rs. 14,22,180/-. The assessee has not been in a position to explain with supporting material as to why the declaration of income made upto to the period 17.8.2011 is also in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
