Tribunal allows appeal, deletes additions for uncorroborated statement and unexplained gold jewelry

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by deleting additions of Rs. 19,15,303 and Rs. 8,24,618 related to uncorroborated statement under section 132(4) and unexplained gold jewellery, respectively. The denial of benefit of telescoping was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 19,15,303 based on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative evidence.
2. Addition of Rs. 8,24,618 on account of unexplained gold jewellery.
3. Denial of benefit of telescoping, recycling, and rotation of funds.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 19,15,303 based on a statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative evidence:

The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 19,15,303 made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) based on a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961, without any corroborative evidence. The A.O. argued that the statement taken during the search had great evidentiary value and could only be retracted if coercion was proven. The appellant had initially offered Rs. 30,00,000 as income from medical business in his statement but did not reflect this in his return of income. The retraction of the statement was deemed an afterthought as it occurred seven months post-search, and the appellant failed to prove coercion. The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide immediate retraction through an affidavit. The Tribunal, however, found merit in the appellant's argument that the statement was not corroborated by any evidence found during the search. The Tribunal referenced judgments, including Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Soni, which stated that an admission during a search is not conclusive proof and can be explained. The Tribunal concluded that the retraction was valid and timely, as it was made immediately after receiving the statement copies. The addition of Rs. 19,15,303 was deleted.

2. Addition of Rs. 8,24,618 on account of unexplained gold jewellery:

The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 8,24,618 for unexplained jewellery. During the search, jewellery weighing 4491 grams was found, and the appellant claimed that 798.430 grams belonged to specific family members. The A.O. rejected this claim due to a lack of evidence and treated 968.43 grams as unexplained, making an addition of Rs. 10,21,135. The Ld. CIT (A) provided partial relief by accepting 170 grams as explained but upheld the addition for the remaining 798.430 grams. The appellant argued that the jewellery belonged to family members and was accounted for in their returns. The Tribunal found that the A.O. did not make further inquiries or require additional evidence from the appellant. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation for 240 grams belonging to his brother-in-law and 258.430 grams purchased by his son from unaccounted income. The Tribunal also accepted the explanation for 300 grams belonging to his brothers, whose assessments did not contest this claim. The addition of Rs. 8,24,618 was deleted.

3. Denial of benefit of telescoping, recycling, and rotation of funds:

The appellant sought the benefit of telescoping, recycling, and rotation of funds, which was denied by the Ld. CIT (A). Given the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions under the first two grounds, the issue of telescoping became irrelevant. Consequently, this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting the additions of Rs. 19,15,303 and Rs. 8,24,618, while dismissing the ground related to telescoping. The order was pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2013.

---