The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7121 (Bang-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 132(4) section 153A

Although some papers were found and seized and surrender was also made by assessee up to Rs. 93 lakhs out of amount noted in seized paper of Rs. 1.39 crores neither AO nor CIT(A) had corroborated the amount of addition with entires in seized material even on sample basis to show that entry in seized material was in fact regarding some undisclosed income of the assessee. The surrender of the assessee of Rs. 93 lakhs was also not correlated with seized material. Addition made merely on the basis of statement without establishing that entry on seized paper was indicating any undisclosed income of assessee was not sustainable.

Search and seizure - Assessment under section 153A - Addition made on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) - AO not having corroborate amount of addition with entries in seized material

AO based on statement recorded under section 132(4) during search at assessee's premises made addition of Rs. 15 crores. Assessee challenged this on the ground that surrendered income had not been quantified on the basis of incriminating material found during search.Held: Although some papers were found and seized and surrender was also made by assessee up to Rs. 93 lakhs out of amount noted in seized paper of Rs. 1,39 crores neither AO nor CIT(A) had corroborated the amount of addition with entries in seized material even on sample basis to show that entry in seized material was in fact regarding some undisclosed income of the assessee. The surrender of the assessee of Rs. 93 lakhs was also not correlated with seized material. Addition made merely on the basis of statement without establishing that entry on seized paper was indicating any undisclosed income of assessee was not sustainable.

REFERRED : CIT v. Bankipur Club Ltd. (1997) 226 ITR 97 (SC) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1250 (SC), Pullangode Rubber & Produce Company Ltd. v. State Of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 89 (SC), CIT v. Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF) (2013) 84 DTR 365 (MP) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1115 (MP-HC), C. Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT-(IMV) (2011) 339 ITR 210 (Karn): 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2018 (Karn-HC), CIT v. Nataraj Finance Corporation (1988) 169 ITR 732 (AP) : 1988 TaxPub(DT) 0536 (AP-HC), Asstt. CIT v. Dharam Pal Gulati ITA No. 671/Del/2012 dated 20-6-2013,Arun Kumar Bhansali v. DCIT (2006) 99 TTJ 1308 (Bang-Trib) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1052 (Bang-Trib) and UOI v. Ajit Jain & Anr. (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 941 (SC).

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2009-10

IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT