TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as the Act) on 07.11.2006 at the business premises and godown of the petitioner. During the survey, the income tax department found the stock of betel nuts and catechu to the value of Rs. 66,08,000/- and unexplained cash of Rs. 3,37,000/-. The petitioner was not maintaining any books of account. Loose papers were impounded by the surveying party showing an investment of Rs. 40,55,500/- outside the books of accounts. Based on the loose papers found during the survey, the petitioner gave his statement and offered to surrender the following amount for imposition of tax for the assessment year 2007-08: S. No. Nature of item offered Amount in (Rs.) 1. Stock 66,08,000 2. As per seized documents 40,55,500 3. Out of cash foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing else but the amount used for the purchase of betel nuts and catechu, which was reflected in the stocks amounting to Rs. 66,08,000/- and, therefore, this error made by the petitioner at the time of giving his statement under Section 133A of the Act should be rectified. The learned counsel submitted that this contention did not find favour with the Settlement Commission, inasmuch as the Commissioner of Income Tax in his report contended that the statement given by the petitioner under Section 133A of the Act was a statement on oath which has evidentiary value and cannot be resiled by the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the report of the Commissioner on this aspect was patently erroneous in as much as only a statement was g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SC). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that admittedly, the petitioner's main income is generated from transport business. The income from loose papers, so seized, indicated that certain payments were made to Tarachand Munim from transport business. This statement is now being rescinded by the petitioner and a new stand is being taken indicating that this money was used by the petitioner through Tarachand Munim for buying betel nuts and, therefore, there is duplication of this income since this value was already shown in the stock of betel nuts. We find that no documents has been placed before the Commission nor before this Court to show that there has been duplication of the income on purchase or sale of bete....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the whim and fancy of the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid, the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. On the question of charging Rs. 82/- per kg. on betel nuts we find from a perusal of the record that the price of betel nuts ranged from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 192/- per kg.. The Commission has taken an average of Rs. 82/- per kg., in which we do not find any error. Further, no evidence has been filed by the petitioner to indicate that he had purchased the betel nuts at the rate of Rs. 45/- per kg.. This being a pure finding of fact, no interference can be made by this Court in a writ jurisdiction. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Lal (Supra) interest is chargeable till the d....