TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the hands of the assessee on the basis of a statement which has been reacted by the assessee. In the case of Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar [ 2015 (11) TMI 285 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that merely on basis of admission that few benami concerns were being run by assessee, assessee could not be subjected to addition when assessee retracted from such admission and revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such admission. Therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of the assessee, in our considered view, the additions cannot be sustained especially in light of the fact that the assessee has subsequently retracted the statement and further, the Department has not brought forth any corroborative evidences to sustain the additions in the hands the assessee during the impugned Assessment Year. Thus in respect of certain additions it is seen that there is concurrent inflow and outflow of Rs. 2 lakhs as evident from the from the statement made by the assessee, and the same being cross entries, therefore no addition can be sustained with respect to the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, on a perusal we agree with assessee that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- only rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is less than Rs. 50,000/- and is therefore exempt under Section 56 of the Act. Further, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 27 of the Paper Book (computation of income), wherein the assessee had disclosed the aforesaid amount in the return of income filed by the assessee. Further, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 36 of the Paper Book (written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(Appeals)), wherein the assessee submitted that that the aforesaid gift is not taxable in the hands the assessee due to relationship between the assessee and his father and further, the aforesaid gift is exempted Section 56 of the Act since it is below the limit of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. In response, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. On going to the facts of the instant case, we observe that it is not disputed that the assessee had received the aforesaid gift amounting to Rs. 45,142/- from his father as Gift . Further, it is also observed that the aforesaid amount of gift of Rs. 45,142/- had been declared by the assessee in his retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in the return of income till the date of search. Further, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has not furnished any evidence that the entry recorded at PageNo. 17 of Annexure A-1/3 were relating to Financial Year 2001-02. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 11,80,800/- as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. In addition to the above, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed further additions on the basis of noting submitted at Page No. 5 amounting to Rs. 2,70,000/- as unexplained income in the hands of the assessee. 9. The assessee has filed appeal before us against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 14,50,800/- (Rs. 11,80,800/- plus Rs. 2,70,000/-) confirmed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Act. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Page 116 of the Paper Book(statement recorded of assessee on 23.05.2008) and submitted that there is concurrent inflow and outflow of Rs. 2 lakhs as evident from the statement, and the same being cross entries, therefore no addition can be sustained with respect to the amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. Further, it was submitted that on perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year 2002-03, whereas the contention of the Department is that the assessee has not brought anything on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid income pertains to Assessment Year 2002-03. However, at the same time it is observed that the Department has added the same income twice, both for Assessment Years 2003-04 and Assessment Year 2009-10. Therefore, it is evident that the Department is also uncertain as to which Assessment Yearto which the aforesaid income pertains to. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the order under Section 154 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), who deleted the additions for Assessment Year 2003-04 on the ground that since the aforesaid additions have also been made for Assessment Year 2009-10, it would amount to double taxation if the same additions are also sustained for Assessment Year 2003-04: The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the appellant and assessed the total receipt of Rs. 41,00,000/- in Assessment Year 2009-10. However, the CIT(A) in first round of quantum appeal has held that only Rs. 11,80,800/- was relating to appellant and confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,80,800/- in Assessment Year 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e retraction Revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such admission. In the case of Nageshwar Enterprises122 taxmann.com 41 (Gujarat) , the High Court held that where Assessing Officer made addition in hands of assessee firm for unaccounted investment and purchases merely on basis of confessional statement of assessee firm's partner before DRI, but no other evidences were bought on record, said addition was to be deleted. In the case of Chetnaben J. Shah 79 taxmann.com 328 (Gujarat) , the High Court held that where there was no material to show that assessee was carrying on speculation business in shares, addition on account of unexplained income from speculation business only on basis of assessee's disclosure under Section 132(4) could not be sustained. In the case of Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar 55 taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat) , the High Court held that merely on basis of admission that few benami concerns were being run by assessee, assessee could not be subjected to addition when assessee retracted from such admission and revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such admission. Therefore, merely on the basis of the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
