AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant was bad in law and has been passed without application of mind in a rushed manner. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that no coercion, pressure, undue harassment was exerted on the appellant to make surrender of Rs. 20 Crores. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 20 crores was sustained not on the basis of any cogent material but on presumption and extraneous considerations. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that in law addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of statement, there must be independent material, evidence to corroborate the surrender, which was retracted. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 20 crores without giving the appellant any opportunity to cross examine Mr. Raghibir Singh & Shri Ranga Rao, whose transactions/ statement were the basis of addition. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in arriving at a concl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment / addition of Rs. 4.99 crores on protective basis in the hands of Shri Basant Bansal, who was not a party to appeal while passing the order of appellant, despite the fact that same has been confirmed on sustentative basis in the hands of the appellant.'' 2.1 Brief facts are, search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initially carried on at assessee's residential and business premises 12.09.2007 which were followed by survey operations under section 133A on 11.10.2007 at related concerns/companies. They were followed with post search and survey enquiries. However second round of search operations were again carried out in the premises of assessee's on 17-09-2008. During the course of these proceedings no worthwhile incriminating material was discovered to indicate any undisclosed income or transactions. According to assessee, DDs of various group concerns amounting to about 31.48 crs drawn on 12.9.2007 were put under restraint order by the department by order dtd. 20-9-07 (these facts will be dealt in detail). This restraint of huge a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no relation to the property and payment to Shri Rangarao. The payment reflected in Raghubir's bank a/c was made to Shri Ranga Rao out of his said proceeds of share of ancestral land. Since department in the quest of disclosure was not willing to verify any explanation offered by assesses; alternatively Shri Basant Bansal contended that the transaction may be deemed to be part of their overall business operations and may be treated as included in the composite disclosure of Rs. 20 Crores offered in the letter dated 19.11.2007. In sum and substance, assessee claims that in these coercive circumstances S/shri Basant Bansal and Roop Kumar Bansal offered a summary disclosure of income at Rs. 20 Crores on behalf of their entire group, covering entire transactions which may be deemed as undisclosed including alleged Raghubir transaction. Department without any corroboration with documents, verification or allowing cross examination requested by the assessee accepted this summary surrender. Thereafter, the DDs of Rs. 31.48 crs. were released on payment of advance tax for the income of Rs. 20 crores. Relevant disclosure letters and portion of 131 statement are as under:- Letter date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehar has sold his ancestral property and we do not have any relation or interest in the said land/sale proceeds and the bank account no SB - 01/ 024061 maintained with Corporation Bank, Maruthi Kunj, Gurgaon in which the sale proceeds of such land was deposited. The payment made to Ranga Rao was out of the sale proceeds received on sale of such land is separate transaction and we do not have any relation/interest on such payment/transaction. Although, the said property and the bank account were not belongs to the assessee, however the assessee Basant Bansal still ready to pay tax on the credit entries of the said bank account of Raghubir, which is included in the income of Rs. 20 Crores offered by the assessee in the previous letter dated 19.11.2007. It is further submitted that the balance Income of Rs. 10 crores offered in the hands of Roop Kumar Bansal is also included in the income of Rs. 20 crores offered in the previous letter 19.11.2007. Hence, the assessee Basant Bansal and Roop Kumar Bansal offered income aggregating to Rs. 20 Crores, Which were earned by them from purchase and sale/advances received etc. to purchase peace of mind and to avoid litigation, with the understa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alleged transaction and relied upon various judicial pronouncements for the propositions that:- (i) Any adverse material used against assessee needs to be confronted for rebuttal. 67 TTJ (Delhi) 109. (ii) Statement made by any third party after the date of search is of no consequence assessee has a right of its cross examination. This having not been done the additions cannot be made. 604 ITR 393 (Delhi), 183 TAXMAN 172 (Delhi), 166 TAXMAN 137 (Delhi). (iii) It is the burden of the department that material brought on record including retracted statement must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidences. Vinod Solanki vs. UOI 233 ELT 157 (SC). (iv) Admission made in ignorance of supporting record and legal rights or under duress cannot bind such statement or disclosure. AIR 1976 SC 376, Shri Krishan vs. Kuruksheta University. AO was of the view that the 1st surrender was made by assessee after a period of 2 months of search, it certainly was on the basis of some evidence and information, otherwise he would not offer such a substantial sum of money as undisclosed income. Thus the surrender was made as a result of post search inquiries the mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e clarified that in the surrender of additional income of Rs. 20 crores vide out letter dated 19.11.2007 although the credit entries in the account of Sh. Raghbir were also surrendered. AO observed that: 2.4 The Investigation Wing, Delhi examined certain bank accounts and came to know that the account No.SB/01/024061 of Shri Raghbir with Corporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon was used by Sh. Basant Bansal and the companies in which he and his brother Sh. Roop Bansal had interest, to route their unaccounted income for purchasing land. On coming to know of this account being detected by the department as discussed in the previous para which contained opening deposit of Rs. 9.66 crores he became jittery and filed the letter of surrender dated 15.01.2008 to DDIT (Intelligence), probably apprehending more such detection by the department. However, nowhere the statements of either Sh. Raghbir or Sh. Rang Rao have been used against the assessee. Only the information received from them was utilized, which ultimately led to SB/01/024061 of Sh. Raghbir with Coprporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon which he admitted in the letter of surrender dated 15.01.2008. 2.5 In view of the discussi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certifying that the transactions in the said bank account had been conducted by Shri Raghbir. The assessee has also enclosed copy of Compromise Deed between M/s. G.P. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. And Sh. Raghbir, Sh. Chet Ram. Smt. Billo, Smt. Seema etc.. In this regard first of all I would like to mention what was the need to file these documents. Moreover, how the assessee came into possession of these documents which are not his property. Neither has he claimed in his reply that these have been provided to him Sh. Raghbir or by M/s. G.P. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. By filing all these documents the assessee wants to convey that the account no. SB/01/024061 of Shri Raghbir with Corporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon is not his but on the basis of it he filed letter of surrender of undisclosed income of Rs. 20 Crores before the DDIT (Intellignece-1), New Delhi on 15.01.2008. In this regard I would also like to recall that it is very clear from the account opening form of account no. held by Sh. Raghbir with Corporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon that Sh. Basant Bansal & Sh. Roop Bansal very well knew Sh. Raghbir. And I would also like to add that it is the same bank, certificate issued by which to S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee has admitted during the search operation and in post search operation before the Income-tax authorities is binding on him despite retraction. In this regard decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court also supports the above view as it has also held in its decision dated 24.09.2007 in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT at 642 of 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 that "It is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true." Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court which has in the case V.Kumhambu and Sons vs CIT (219 ITR 235 to 243) has held, "If a partner came forward to disclose about the non-entry of excess stock in the registers during the course of search the Income-tax Officer could use it even though there was no actual verification of the stock. The assessment was based on the statement of the assessee. Since no case had been made that the statement was made under a mistaken belief of fact or law and the stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led a letter dated 15.01.2008 to the DDIT(Ingelliegnec-1), New Delhi stating that, "to clarify our previous letter dated 19.11.2007 offering income of 20 Crores and further queries raised by you on 14.01.2008 in respect of property purchased from Ranga Rao and amount of Rs. 62.75 lacs received by Rang Rao from Raghubir, S/o Kehar. In this regard we would like to submit that the coowner Raghubir, S/o Kehar has sold his ancestral property and we do not have any relation or interest in the said land/sale proceeds and the bank account no SB-01/024061 maintained with Corporation Bank, Maruthi Kunj, Gurgaon in which the sale proceeds of such land was deposited. The payment made to Sh. Rang Rao was out of the sale proceeds received on sale of such land is separate transaction and we do not have any relation/interest on such payment/transaction. Although, the said property and the bank account were not belongs to the assessee, however the assessee Sh. Basant Bansal still ready to pay tax on the credit entries of the said band account of Sh. Raghubir, which is included in the income of Rs. 20 Crores offered by the Assessee in the previous letter dated 19.11.2007." 2.11 From the above fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable on the record awarded part relief based on following observations and conclusion:- "5.5 I have considered the submission of ld. A.R and have perused the material on record. The facts related to the issue have been discussed elaborately by the A.O. in the assessment order. Various arguments taken by the appellant before the A.O. have not only been mentioned but properly discussed and suitably countered. On careful perusal of the submissions made before the undersigned by the A.R. of the appellant and after due consideration, it is seen that the appellant has not taken any new argument before the undersigned, hence, there is no need for repeating the arguments taken by the A.R. (though already extracted in the aforesaid paras) and countering them again elaborately. However, it will be appropriate to discuss them in brief. 5.5.1 The A.R. has drawn my attention to the fact that as per A.R the alleged benami account in the name of Sh. Raghubir was shown to the appellant on 15.1.2008, whereas, the appellant has made surrender of Rs. 20 crore vide letter dated 19.11.2007. I do not find any significance of this point of the A.R. AS mentioned by the A.O, the earlier search and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame of Sh. Ranga Rao. Hence sale proceeds of land of Ranga Rao would not be credited in this bank account. Without prejudice to above, moreover, no evidence has been filed by the appellant that Rs. 9.66 crore deposited in this bank account represent sale proceeds of land sold by Mr. Ranga Rao and Others, as argued by the A.R. 5.5.4 Copy of impugned bank account of Sh.Raghuvir Singh was shown to the appellant during post search investigation conducted by Intelligence Unit, New Delhi, wherein huge deposits to the extent of Rs. 9.66 crore were noticed. Moreover, in his subsequent letter which was filed on 15.1.2008 i.e. after 2 months from earlier letter dated 19.11.2007, the appellant, after considering that he is getting cornered, has on its own admitted in its letter dated 15.1.2008 addressed to DDIT (Intelligence-1,) New Delhi 'that he is ready to pay tax on the credit entries of the said bank account of Sh. Raghuvir'. When the appellant, who is a very reputed, knowledgeable and seasoned businessman, is himself admitting that he is ready to pay tax on the credit entries in the bank account of Sh. Raghuvir Singh, which were to the tune of as high as Rs. 9.66 crore, obviously....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de Rubber Produce Co.vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, rather supports the case of the A.O. as in the aforecited case, as per the A.R. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that " an admission is an extremely piece of evidence but it cannot said that it is the conclusive. It is open to the person who made the addition to show that it is incorrect." In the instant case, there is admission of additional income of Rs. 20 crore that too after two months of the search vide letter dated 19.11.2007. If the appellant has any doubt as to the correctness of his admission then immediately afterward he should have retracted the letter dated 19.11.2007 by filing the affidavit and mentioning the reasons and circumstances as to how and why the admission so made earlier is incorrect. Instead of filing any such affidavit retracting the admission of additional income offered for tax, after due consideration and after due application of mind for further two months, he has consciously chosen to again file a letter dated 15.1.2008 not for retracting the contents of the earlier letter but mentioning that he is ready to pay tax on the deposits in the impugned bank account amounting to Rs. 9.66 Crore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... additional income related to the deposits in the impugned bank account to the extent of Rs. 9.66 crore, is upheld in relation to both the brothers. 5.9 However, during the assessment proceedings in the case of Sh. Roop Bansal, he has claimed that the letter of surrender of undisclosed income submitted by his brother Sh. Basant Bansal was neither made by him nor confirmed by him and he has not accepted/shown additional income in his return. Moreover, Sh. Roop Bansal has admitted Rs. 4.99 crore as his undisclosed income during the course of search carried out on 12.9.2007 and A.O. has accordingly added an amount of Rs. 4.99 crore as undisclosed income in the hands of Sh. Roop Bansal. As Sh. Basant Bansal in his letter dated 19.11.07 stated that the additional income of Rs. 20 crore so offered to tax includes Rs. 4.99 crore disclosed by Sh. Roop Bansal and A.O. has also made addition of Rs. 4.99 crore in the hands of Sh. Roop Bansal, accordingly addition to the extent of Rs. 4.99 crore, out of Rs. 20 crore so made in the hands of Sh. Basant Bansal is hereby deleted on substantive basis. However, as Sh. Roop Bansal is still disputing the addition of Rs. 4.99 crore so made in his ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assesse vulnerable and a soft target for a disclosure though there was no incriminating material which made the department to hanker for a disclosure. By taking the advantage of asessee's adverse situation and vulnerability, departmental authorities created pressure indicating that DDs will not be released unless assesse makes disclosure of undisclosed income of Rs. 20 crores and pays advances taxes thereon. It is only after extracting the alleged disclosure and payment of advance tax, the DDs were released after hectic efforts and considerable delay in Feb. 2008. It is contended that the pressure of the department can be exerted in many ways which are not confined to only time of search; physical threat; not leaving the premises or on the spot harassment. The harassment continues even after the post search proceedings as in the case of the assessee bu various tactics. Withholding of non interest generating DDs. amounting to Rs. 31.48 crores itself is a potential pressure for a businessman to yield to the demands of the department. This much blockage of funds is sufficient to bring the assessee's business operations to knot resulting irreparable loss and capable of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Basant Bansal are referred to, Ld. Counsel contends that none of them indicate that any incriminating was found whose reply could not be given and which on human conduct or preponderance of probabilities can inspire the appellant to make a huge surrender of Rs. 20Cr. The facts, aforesaid circumstances, question with no reference to seized material clearly indicate the background building up of pressure induced the assessee to declare an undisclosed income which did not exist. The seizure of DDs, harassment of proceedings; loss of repute and obstruction of business were the main compelling factors. Nature of the questions put to the Appellant were as under: Question Nature of question No.1 to 3 General information was sought as to the Appellant, companies / concerns in which he is a director or has financial interest. No.4 to 7 Where the companies are assessed to tax, their returns, books of account and where the books are kept. No.8 Information as to the nature of business. No.9 Where the land was purchased during last 3 to 4 years and licenses applied for. No.10 & 12 Source of purchase of land. Why no interest was paid on loans taken from group....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit entries in the account of Sh. Raghubir were also surrendered". Thereafter DDIT by the letter dated 14.1.2008 required the assesse to explain the payment of Rs. 62.75 lacs from the A/c No. SB/01/024061 with Corporation Bank 15.1.2008. Assessee submitted that Sh. Raghubir has sold his ancestoral property and that the Appellant has no relation or interest in the said land and the aforesaid bank account in which sale proceeds of land sold by Sh. Raghubir was deposited. Notwithstanding the categorical denial of any relation / interest with saving A/c No. SB/01/024061 of Sh. Raghubir, as the assessee's DDs worth Rs. 30 crores were held up with the department, assesse agreed to pay tax on credit entries in the A/c No. SB/01/024061 as included in the already made surrender on 19.11.2007. It materially changed nothing in terms of overall tax liability resulting from the disclosure. 2.23 Qua the return and declaration of additional income of only Rs. 39,00,000/-, assessee by letter dated 6.12.2010 submitted that it may be provided the copies of statement of Mr. Raghubir and relevant bank accounts. That the Assessing Officer by letter dated 7.12.2010 provided copies of statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s / suits were dismissed as withdrawn. - Affidavit of Sh. Raghubir dated 8.9.2009, wherein, he stated on oath that he alongwith with his family member sold land admeasuring 102 kanal and half marla in village Behrampur, Gurgaon for consideration of Rs. 22.81 Cr. and that he had opened A/c No. SB/01/024061 with Corporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon and had made deposits in the said account, which was operated by him. A letter to this effect was also written to Corporation Bank, Maruti Kunj, Gurgaon. 2.24 From the aforesaid documentary evidence, it is clear & beyond doubt that the amount of Rs. 9.66 Cr. credited in the A/c No. SB/01/024061 with Corporation Bank, Gurgaon represented part part of sale proceed of Sh. Raghubir and his family members. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for suspecting much less holding that A/c No. SB/01/024061 was the benami account of the Appellants. On such flimsy ground the finding of BENAMI against assessee's is grossly fallacious and bereft of any legal justification. The entire burden to prove any Benami transaction is on revenue which has not been whispered much less discussed. Rejecting assessee's explanation without an iota ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raghubir and not the assessee do not assist the assessee because if the bank account and the transactions did not relate to the assessee then how the assessee get these documents. (viii) Self assessment tax of Rs. 3 Cr. was paid on 28.2.2007 for the assessment year 2007-08, instead of assessment year 2008-09. If there was no unaccounted/unexplained income, then, why the assessee deposited Rs. 3 Cr. as self assessment tax, which is approximate to the tax on Rs. 10Cr. being the share of assessee out of surrender of Rs. 20Cr. (ix) Admission made by an assessee is binding despite retraction, more so because there is nothing to indicate that surrender was obtained under threat, duress or promise. In fact, letters dated 19.11.2007 surrendering Rs. 20 Cr. was filed after initiation of enquires into the source of purchase of various lands by Mr. Basant Bansal, Mr. Roop Bansal and companies in which they have interest. The enquires revealed that source of payment made towards purchase of land was SB/01/024061. The emphasis of the ld. Assessing Officer reasons as stated in para 31 under the head 'basis of addition'024061 are to the effect that bank a/c- SB/01/ was benami of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Raghubir and Mr. Ranga Rao. If these statements are ignored, then there is nothing on record to allege that SB/01/024061 was that of the Appellant and accordingly, the entire case of the revenue would fall flat. Your Appellant may require the Assessing Officer to prove its case de hors the statements. - The averment of the Assessing officer that the Appellant did not avail the opportunity to cross examine Sh. Raghubir and Mr. Ranga Rao is make believe because it is not understood why the summons dated 7.12.2010 were sent to village Tauru, Distt. Gurgaon, when all other notices / communications were being addressed / sent to C-13, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, which was the residence of the Appellant. Obliviously, the purpose of sending such a crucial notice to the village of the Appellant, where the Appellant does not reside was nothing but cosmetic opportunity. The law enjoins upon the Assessing Officer to send all notices at the address furnished by the assessee. It cannot be assumed that the Appellant was evading service of notices as all the details, court proceedings, exact position of Raghubir and Ranga Rao was known to the assessee. Therefore, summons dated 7.12.2010 addressed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to be basis of additions as undisclosed income. More so when the regular books of accounts have not been found fault with and are not rejected. The settled legal position about admissions and retraction is enunciated by following judgments: 1 In Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "an admission is an admissible piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect". 2 In CIT v. Uttam Chand Jain (2010) 320 ITR 554, Hon'ble Bombay High Court taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki v. UOI (2008) 16 Scale 31 has observed that retracted confession can be relied upon only there is independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the surrender made. 3 In Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences v. ACIT (2011) 012 ITR (Trib) 376 (Chen), wherein, addition towards capitation fee allegedly collected by the institute was made solely on the basis of statements of students and staff recorded under section 132(4) was made. Except for a note giving the breakup of number ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The search proceedings, record relating thereto being in the exclusive custody of the searching officers, its there wish and will which prevails during the fateful period. It is almost impossible for the assessee to adduce demonstrative evidence of exerting such pressure. Therefore, the higher courts has ordained the appellate authorities to carefully examine whether such pressure was built due to extract such surrender. Reliance is placed on: In DCIT v. Pramukh Buildings (2008) 112 ITR 179 (Ahd), it was held that even in the absence of proof of coercion or pressure, the statement by itself cannot be taken as conclusive. Therefore, mere absence of proof of pressure, threat, coercion or inducement is not proved the statement cannot be held as conclusive and additions cannot be made by solely relying on statement or a letter. 2.28 Ld. Counsel further contends that: (i) Survey conducted on 11.10.2007 did not yield anything incriminating that can be said to have compelled the Appellant to make surrender of Rs. 20 Cr. (ii) Had any material implicating the Appellant as (i) possessing undisclosed income or (ii) having undertaken such transactions been in the possession of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unity to cross examine Mr. Ranga Rao was not issued at the address on which notices etc were being issued regularly. Therefore, opportunity was only technically provided. It will not be out of place to emphasize here that the assessment order nowhere records that on 14.12.2010, Sh. Raghubir and Mr. Ranga Rao were present for cross examination. Since Mr. Ranga Rao who is the witness of the department was not produced for cross examination, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. (vii) On the basis of aforesaid factual position, it was submitted that the surrender made on 19.11.2007 & 15.1.2008 was not because the Appellant was cornered on account of material in possession of the department, rather, the "Pro-tem" surrender was made to avoid harassment. It may be noted here that on the second day of the search on 12.9.2007, the group companies of the Appellant had withdrawn the amounts laying in their respective bank accounts by way of demand drafts in their favour. The aggregate value of the demand drafts was Rs. 31.48 Cr. The department by the orders dated 20.9.2007 prohibited the banks from clearing/en-cashing the drafts. Finally that was revoked after 5 months in the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be said to have shifted the onus back on the Appellant. The retraction from the surrender is to be seen in the light of aforesaid facts. It cannot be said that the retraction was not bonafide. It is well settled that complete surrounding circumstances should be kept in view to decide whether subsequent retraction was merely for the sake of retraction or the same was based on material indicating that the surrender originally made was not well thought of. The documents filed by the Appellant, which have not been disapproved clearly prove that the surrender made by the Appellant with reference to A/c No. SB/01/024061 was not well thought of and therefore, the retraction of the Appellant cannot be ignored as afterthought. More so because transaction of sale of land by Sh. Raghubir & others and by Mr. Ranga Rao & others were independent and it is not the case of the department that both these transactions were part of the same transaction. (x). Without prejudice, the surrender of Rs. 20 Cr. included addition on account of surrender of Rs. 4.99 Cr. made by Mr. Roop Bansal on 12.9.2007, which has separately been added in his hands for the assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, in cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of details and entangle the assessment proceedings. (iv) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.(supra) rather supports the case of the department as Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that " an admission is an extremely piece of evidence" (v) The admission of additional income of Rs. 20 crore is after two months of the search vide letter dated 19.11.2007. If the appellant had any then immediately afterward retraction should have been filed. Rather assessee reconfirmed it by a letter dated 15.1.2008. (vi) Firstly assesee disclosed Rs. 20 crs. Thereafter included the surrender of Rs. 4.99 crore made by his brother Sh. Roop Bansal on 12.9.2007 and subsequently as a result of enquiries, reiterated the offer of additional income of Rs. 20 crore vide letter dated 15.1.2008, including the additional income related to the deposits in the Corporation bank account to the extent of Rs. 9.66 crore. All this shows that the disclosure was proper and undisclosed income belonged to both the brothers. (vii) Order of ld. CIT(A) and case laws mentioned therein are relied on by ld. CIT(DR). 2.30 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Facts, cir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reconciliation. Department did not put any question about any incriminating material which assessee could not reply. The disclosure part from pro tem is claimed to be for avoiding litigation and buying peace with the department. e. Any statement on oath is material piece of evidence but if the assessee is able to demonstrate that actual facts are different than the factual verification has better evidentiary value. More so when the so called statement is ensured by overt or covert; direct or indirect means of coercion, pressure or harassment. These factors are to inferred from the surrounding circumstances and human conduct; there can be no demonstrative proof as the seized record is in the domain pf department. The facts as narrated clear make the underlying elements of pressure, coercion and harassment manifest in extracting the disclosure. Conclusion: In our considered opinion the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for the assessee lead to a clear inference that the disclosure of the assessee cannot be regarded as voluntary. The pressure of restrained DDs. of 31.48 crs. against a disclosure tax liability of about 7 crs is palpable. It has the propensity to derail the busi....