| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8081 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 133A
The undisputed fact was that information was received from DIT(Inv.) Hyderabad regarding purchase of property by the assessee and consequent cash transaction of Rs. 3 crores between assessee (purchaser) and the seller Smt. Dhanalakshmi & Family, Resident of Hyderabad. Neither any incriminating material nor any other transaction of cash was reported from Hyderabad regarding receipt of cash of Rs. 1.50 crores from assessee and sellers had confirmed only cash components of Rs. 3 crores. Retracted statements lost their evidentiary values as AO failed to bring any material evidence against assessee to prove that assessee had paid disputed amount of Rs. 1.50 crore to seller. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 150 crores made by AO just on conjunctures and surmises could not be sustained.
|
Survey - Addition on the basis of statement recorded during survey - Evidentiary value - Subsequent retraction and no material evidence brought by AO to disbelieve alleged retraction
During the course of survey at assessee's premises one 'S' was confronted with information received from DIT(Inv.) Hyderabad. Accordingly, said 'S' admitted Rs. 4.50 crores on on-money payment of Rs. 4.50 Crores made by assessee-company towards purchase of property. statement of Jodavji Lali Shah, director of assessee was also recorded under section 131 who confirmed statement given by said 'S'. Immediately thereafter on the next day director furnished a sworn affidavit before department retracting previously mentioned statement given by him to the extent of excess declaration of Rs. 1.5 crores obained from him by wrong representation by department. As per director, said 'S' was not aware of details of transaction for purchase of property by assessee and under force and pressure from IT Authorities and on the basis of information given by IT Authorities with regard to cash components shown by sellers, he declared a sum of Rs. 4.5 crores as undisclosed income. However, AO disbelieved retraction of director of assessee-company and relied on statement given earlier.Held: The undisputed fact was that information was received from DIT(Inv.) Hyderabad regarding purchase of property by the assessee and consequent cash transaction of Rs. 3 crores between assessee (purchaser) and the seller, Smt. Dhanalakshmi & Family, Resident of Hyderabad. Neither any incriminating material nor any other transaction of cash was reported from Hyderabad regarding receipt of cash of Rs. 1.50 crores from assessee and sellers had confirmed only cash components of Rs. 3 crores. Retracted statements lost their evidentiary values as AO failed to bring any material evidence against assessee to prove that assessee had paid disputed amount of Rs. 1.50 crore to seller. Accordingly, addition of Rs. 150 crores made by AO just on conjunctures and surmises could not be sustained.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|