TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound during the course of search. The submissions of assessee had made disclosure of undisclosed income in the course of search was made for the assessee as well as other entities in the group has not been controverted by Revenue. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by Revenue. The only stress placed by Revenue is that the amount was accepted as undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. It is a settled law that only on the basis of the statement, and without any corroborating evidence no addition of income can be made. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 2715/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2023 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Ms. Astha Chandra, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Satish Khosla, Adv., Shri Manish Malik, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 18.02.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 30, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under : 3. Assessee is an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that though the Revenue has raised various grounds but the effective ground is Ground No.2. 6. AO noted that in the original return of income filed for A.Y. 2012-13 on 30.09.2012, assessee had declared total income of Rs.7,67,44,950/-. He noted that assessee had thereafter filed a revised return of income on 10.12.2013 declaring income of Rs.2,85,82,880/-. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for revising the return of income to which, assessee inter alia submitted that during the course of search and seizure operation carried out at the business and residential premises of the assessee and other entities on 22.11.2011, assessee to buy peace and put to an end of litigations emanating from search, offered to tax a sum of Rs.130 crores as the income in the hands of various business entity/companies and self for A.Y. 2012-13 at the time of search. It was further submitted that later on after examining the record and details, it was noted that a sum of Rs.44.12 crores was disclosed for the same reasons as in earlier disclosure and thus the total disclosure amount stood at Rs.174.12 crores. It was further submitted by the assessee that a sum of Rs.102 crores related to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has made the disclosure of Rs. 130 crores. The details of disclosure of Rs. 130 crores were furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, same is reproduced as under:- S. No. Name Asstt.Yr. Amount Surrendered Returned Income Assessed Income Nature of Income Surrendered Status of Dispute Appeal filed 1. Sachi Properties Pvt. Ltd 2012-13 102,02,000,00 131,65,00,000 131,65,00,000 Relinquishment of rights in the property No Appeal filed 2 Aakriti Hotels Pvt Ltd 2009-10 5,60,52,148 5,60,52,148 79,07,81,548 Interest Income on FDR. Appeal filed before CIT(A) on other 3 Aakriti Hotels Pvt Ltd 2010-11 10,80,15,350 10,80,15,350 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted, assessee made the bifurcation of the disclosure, which was confirmed for the fact that return of income was filed on 30.9.2012, where additional income of Rs.5.22 crores was included , on which taxes were also paid, and the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 22.11.2011 was voluntary . In view of the above facts , A.O. was of the opinion that the retraction through filing of the alleged revised return on 10.12.2013. is after thought. (iv) During appellate proceedings it has been submitted by the appellant that the disclosure made on the estimated basis for entire group. However, the disclosure made in 5 persons, is not disputed and same has been disclosed and due taxes, have also been paid, except in the case of appellant. For the disclosure made in the case of appellant is not supported by any undisclosed asset/ seized paper and the amount of disclosure of Rs. 5.22 crores (Rs.130 - Rs.128.80), was determined as a balancing figure , after subtracting from Rs.130 crores , the disclosed amount of Rs. 128.80 crores in 5 persons. The same is also evident as per para 2.3 of the assessment order, where it has been stated by the A.O. that the balance amount of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter while framing the relevant assessment order. In the case of the appellant, no evidence has been found during course of search and seizure action nor thereafter before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. CONCLUSION : On the perusal of the submissions made and argument given by the appellant, it is clear that the : the disclosure made by the appellant for A.Y. 2012-13 , was not supported by any evidence, found during course of search and seizure action u/s 132 and accordingly, the revised return filed by the appellant is in order, in the assessment proceedings also , A.O. has not referred for any document found during course of search and seizure action nor thereafter before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. In view of the above, I agree with the arguments of the appellant and the findings of the AO are erroneous and therefore, addition of Rs.4,87,44,948/-, on account of undisclosed income, is hereby deleted. Accordingly, ground no.1, is hereby allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now before us. 8. Before us, Learned DR took us to the findings of AO and submitted that during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
