TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Income addition based solely on post-search statement without corroboration deemed unjustified by Tribunal</h1> <h3>M/s. Ultimate Builders Versus ACIT, Central-II, Bhopal</h3> M/s. Ultimate Builders Versus ACIT, Central-II, Bhopal - [2019] 74 ITR (Trib) 566 (ITAT [Indore]) Issues Involved:1. Justification of addition based on a statement made during the course of a search.2. Validity of the statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.3. Correlation of the statement with incriminating material.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Justification of Addition Based on a Statement Made During the Course of a Search:The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- was made solely on the basis of a statement given by one of the partners during the search, without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the addition based on the statement recorded on 02.02.2014, after the search concluded on 31.01.2014. The Tribunal emphasized that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a statement without correlating it with incriminating material found during the search. This position is supported by various judgments, including the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT and the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s CIT.2. Validity of the Statement Under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act:The Tribunal examined whether the statement recorded on 02.02.2014 could be considered a valid statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. It was observed that the search in the case of the assessee concluded on 31.01.2014, and the statement was recorded after the conclusion of the search. The Tribunal held that the statement recorded on 02.02.2014 could not be considered as a statement under Section 132(4) for the assessee since the search had already concluded. The Tribunal noted that the statement was recorded by a different authorized officer and not during the course of the search at the assessee’s premises.3. Correlation of the Statement with Incriminating Material:The Tribunal found that the AO did not refer to any specific incriminating material directly related to the assessee. The seized documents mentioned by the AO were related to the Signature Group and not specifically to the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made solely based on the statement of Mr. Vipin Chouhan without any correlation to incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal emphasized that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of a statement without corroborative evidence, as held in various judgments, including ACIT(1) vs. Sudeep Maheshwari and CIT vs. Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- was not justified as it was based solely on a statement recorded after the conclusion of the search and without any corroborative incriminating material. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
