TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Eye Surgeon by profession. The assessee was employee of M/s. Agarwal Eye Hospital during the relevant period. He was also doing this profession separately. A search and seizure operation was carried out at the residential and professional premises of the assessee on 27.10.2005. Notice u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was served on the assessee. The grounds of revenue's appeals in ITA Nos.1981, 1982, 2364 & 2365/Del./2010 are same, therefore, the same are being decided herein and for the sake of convenience, the grounds in ITA No.1981/Del/2010 are only reproduced as under :- "1. That the order of the CIT(A) is perverse in as much as it is based on wrong facts regarding existence of bank account of HUF from 1982-83 to 1999-2000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated above. Ground Nos.1, 1A and 1B in ITA No.2310/Del/2010 read as under :- "1. Whether the CIT (A) erred in law in holding that on money payment of 30 lacs for purchase of property at Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi stated on oath u/s. 132(4) of the Act during the course of search had no evidenciary value in absence of any corroborative evidences. 1(a). In doing so, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act by itself has evidenciary value as provided in the said section & the onus is on the assessee to prove otherwise. 1(b) In coming to the erroneous legal finding regarding evidenciary value of statement u/s. 132(4) the CIT (A0 failed to take into account settled position ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investment in KVPINSC to the extent of 30 lacs as his undisclosed income. 5. That the CIT (A) violated the provisions of rule 46A of the LT. Rules by admitting fresh evidence by way of Post Master's report without giving the A.O. an opportunity to examine the evidence. 6. That the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being erroneous in law and on facts be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored. 7. That the appellant craves leave to amend anyone or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for during so may arise." 3. The appeals in ITA Nos.1981 & 1982/Del/2010 emanate from the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 09.02.2010 and the appeals in ITA Nos.2310, 2364 & 2365/Del/2010 emanate fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. Trilok Prakash Agarwal HUF. On 20.09.1992, there was a withdrawal of Rs. 13,500/-, out of which an FDR was made and it became Rs. 25,608/- after accumulation of the interest which was further reinvested. He further submitted that the assessee has always maintaining a consistent stand that his HUF, M/s. Trilok Prakash Agarwal HUF has come into existence since long and the FDR/NSC/KVP have been purchased from the funds and reinvested by the HUF only. These investments were found at the time of search and were in the name of the coparcener/karta of the HUF and the income of these investments was not over the limit of taxable income, therefore, no return of income was filed by the HUF for those years. He also submitted that the evidences wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed. 7. In ITA No.2310/Del/2010, ground nos.1, 1a and 1b is related to the deletion of addition made on money payment of Rs. 30 lacs for purchase of property at Shivalik Malviya Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 during the course of search operation. 8. The revenue claims that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has evidenciary value and to prove otherwise the onus is on the assessee. He submitted that CIT (A) has failed to take into account the settled position of law and relied on the case laws mentioned in the grounds of appeal itself. 9. On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that the CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition. There was no corroboratory eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05 when he was too tired and weak and in that situation, he was not having any other option but to obey raiding party and he kept on signing whatever document which has been put before him and he made it clear that any surrender recorded in the statement is baseless, false and without his knowledge. He denied absolutely his legal consent by the discloser. Revenue has not made any effort to disprove the contents of this affidavit. We also find that this addition was made only on the basis of statement and there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever found and seized during the search operation. The assessee has categorically retracted from this statement. There is no evidence whatsoever on the record to substantiate that any on money was pa....