| |
The Tax PublishersIT(SS)A No. 63/Ind/2019
2020 TaxPub(DT) 5119 (Ind-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 132(4)
Where AO made addition merely on the basis of statement of assessee's son under section 132(4), wherein some additional income on account of loose papers was accepted, however, the AO did not establish the fact that any of the documents as found and seized was not recorded in the books of account of the persons to which those documents actually pertained, therefore, without referring to any of the documents, the same could not be binding on the assessee and the same could not be used against the assessee as evidence and that too, in search assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO was rightly directed to delete the said addition.
|
Search and seizure - Statement under section 132(4) - Evidentiary value -
Search and seizure operation under section 132 were carried out at residential premises of assessee. AO made addition of certain amount on account of disclosure made during the search under section 132(4). Assessee submitted that the addition was made merely on the basis of statement of his son wherein some additional income on account of loose papers was accepted. However, all those documents were properly recorded in the regular books of account of the persons to which those documents actually pertained. Therefore, the assessee while filing of his return of total income did not consider the amount of additional income, which was accepted by his son at the time of search on account of documents/loose papers. Held: It was found that the addition was made on the basis of admission of assessee's son during the course of search. It was contended by the assessee that all those documents were properly recorded in the regular books of account of the persons to which those documents actually pertained. However, it was found that the AO did not establish the fact that any of the documents as found and seized was not recorded in the books of account of the persons to which those documents actually pertained. Thus, there was force in the contention of the assessee that without referring to any of the documents, the same could not be binding on the assessee and the same could not be used against the assessee as evidence and that too in search assessment proceedings. Hence, the AO was directed to delete the impugned addition.
REFERRED : Pullangode Rubber & Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0089 (SC), Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0190 (Guj-HC), Ultimate Builders v. ACIT [ITA No.134/Ind/2019 dt. 9-8-2019 (Ind)] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6577 (Ind-Trib) and ACIT v. Shri Sudeep Maheshwari & Vice-Versa [ITA No.524/Ind/2013 dt. 13-2-2019 (Ind)].
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2016-17
IN THE ITAT, INDORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|