9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA, Shri Gagan Khandelwal, CA And Shri Jaind Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. Above captioned three appeals of the Assessee and four cross appeals by the Department are against separate orders order dated 15.07.2021 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT(A)'] arising out of separate Assessment Orders dated 31.12.2018 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida (hereinafter referred as 'Ld. AO') for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. All appeals involve similar facts and issues. For facility of convenience, all were heard together and are being decided by a common order. ITA No.1176/Del/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a on the basis of which Amit Modi director has admitted an undisclosed income of Rs. 32,00,00,000/- for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 in the hands of directors and companies. 4. In view of search operation, the group cases were centralized to Central Circle, Noida. The jurisdiction order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case, was passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Kanpur communicated vide F. No. Pr. CIT- (C)/KNP/Decentralization/2017-18/1260 dated: 10/08/2018. 5. Consequently, for the purpose of assessment, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued dated 16/08/2018 & duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee has e-filed return of income on 26/11/2018 declaring total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Pullangade Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held as under: "An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect." 10. Learned Department Representative of Department of Revenue submitted that Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,55,00,000/- made by A.O. by relying on the statement of the assessee, recorded on oath during search and page no. 2 & 3 of annexure A-1 seized during search being the "cash to be received back against purchase bill to be discussed and reconcile with management", in view of the ratio of decision in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the same has been added on substantive basis and retraction have been filed by all the directors and companies including the assessee. 11. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that on 09/11/2016 from premises of assessee cash of Rs. 15,16,000/- was recovered during the search proceedings. The appellant/assessee submitted that the cash found was belong to entire family and not to the assessee alone. Assessee and his spouse are regular income tax payer and assessee falls under the highest tax slab gross total income for Asst. Year 2017-18 (of assessee was Rs. 62.74 lacs and of spouse of assessee was Rs. 11.65 lacs. The spouse of assessee earned income of Rs. 3.60 lac of rental income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be explained. 14. From perusal of record it is evident that Learned CIT(A) in para 6.12 had analyzed pages of spiral note book Annexure-A1 and in para 6.13 to 6.17 analyzed that the Explanation offered by the assessee was allowable. The act of assessee from his statement during search based on evidence found during the search was justified and upheld. Therefore, the arguments of Learned Authorized Representative for Department being devoid of merit are untenable and deserve dismissal. The grounds of appeal of department are dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of assessee i.e., ITA No.1176/De/2021 is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue i.e., ITA No.1352/Del/2021 is dismissed. ITA No.1170/Del/2021 : Puspahas Agrawal vs. DCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed during search alongwith the retraction letter has not been examined by the AO whereas in page no. 35 to 40 of the assessment order for AY 2017-18 in the of Amit Modi, one of the director who has accepted the unaccounted income in this statement recorded on oath during search. The same has been examined in details and natural justice has been done in the case. 18. From perusal of record it is evident that Learned CIT(A) in para 6.12 had analyzed pages of spiral note book Annexure-A1 and in para 6.13 to 6.17 analyzed that the Explanation offered by the assessee was allowable. The act of assessee from his statement during search based on evidence found during the search was justified and upheld. Therefore, the arguments of Learned Authoriz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
