|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4232 (Ahd-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Addition made merely relying on statement recorded under section 132(4), without bringing any other corroborative evidence, could not be sustained.
Search and seizure - Statement recorded under section 132(4) - No corroborative evidence to substantiate statement recorded -
During search at assessee's premises, a diary exhibiting certain notings was seized. These notings were admitted in the statement recorded under section 132(4) as pertaining to unexplained investments. Accordingly, AO made addition under section 69. Held: Disclosure or admission made under section 132(4) during the course of search proceedings is an admissible evidence, but not conclusive one. Addition on the basis of disclosure made under section 132(4) is to be made on the basis of other corroborative evidence exhibiting unexplained investment or unexplained asset possessed by an assessee. In the instant case, except a disclosure on the strength of certain notings, department failed to bring any other corroborative evidence exhibiting actual investment by assessee in the purchase of any land. Accordingly, AO was not justified in making addition.
Followed:Kialashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT (2010) 220 CTR (Guj) 138 : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 190 (Guj-HC) and KPM Nair, Tax appeal No. 1152 of 2007, dated 3-8-2016.
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT