TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the basis of statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act which was retracted thereafter?" 2. In short, the issue is that during search operations, the assessee made a detailed statement on 19.1.2006 in which he admitted of having invested unaccounted income of Rs.50 lacs. He offered to surrender such income which he had invested in construction and furnishing of bungalow. The assessee, however, did not file any such return offering such additional income to tax. The Assessing Officer, therefore, framed assessment and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.50.36 lacs (rounded off) after making addition of Rs.50 lacs towards investment in the bungalow. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. CIT (Appeals) confirmed the view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ource of investment in furniture and fixtures was withdrawal from the firm M/s.Chemfilt but it may be mentioned here that book of the firm were reject u/s.145 due to specific defects found by the Assessing Officer during its assessment proceedings. Hence, the appellant has failed to explain the sources of investment in furniture and fixtures. Further, the appellant has also failed to explain the sources of renovation of Nistha Bungalow stated to be constructed in July 1999. However, the appellant still maintains that there was undisclosed investment to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs which itself is evident that there was not true and full discloser of the investment in the renovation, furniture and fixtures. Hence, the contentions of learned coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dditional investment made by the assessee in additional furniture and fixtures, renovation and other thing. Thus the order of the learned CIT(A) is confirmed. The assessee's appeal is dismissed. 5. The assessee is, therefore, in appeal before us. 6. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Revenue authorities as well as the Tribunal committed serious error in making addition only on the statement of the assessee recorded in the search operations. Counsel further submitted that the Tribunal committed various factual errors, that the retraction of the statement was made after nine months and not after 19 months and that reconciliation of the expenditure was produced before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t remains that initial statement was not retracted for several months. In his retraction statement, the assessee made out a ground that the search had started at 8.30 in the morning and ended on the next day and thus it continued for a period of nearly 24 hours. In short, he suggested mental harassment and fatigue for having made such a disclosure. He did not suggest any undue pressure or allurement. 9. It is noteworthy that quite apart from such statement dated 19.1.06, at the time of search, the assessee had made yet another confessional statement on 28th March 2006. He had never referred to such a statement in his retraction. He did not offer any explanation why quite apart from the statement made at the time of search operation, he h....