TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 300.000 Total 798.430 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the benefit of telescoping, recycling and rotation of funds. 2. In ground no. 1 raised in appeal, briefly the facts are that a search under section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on assessee group on 27.08.2008. The appellant is engaged in the business of distributorship of prepaid mobile sim cards and returned an income of Rs. 2,50,110/- in pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded findings and held that during the course of search, statement of assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 28.8.2008. In the statement, the assessee offered to tax income of Rs. 30,00,000/- in his individual capacity earned from medical business. The assessee reconfirmed the above surrender in his statement dated 5.9.2008. The income, however, was not reflected in the return of income filed on 30.9.2009. The Assessing Officer in his order held that statement taken during the course of search has great evidentiary value and the retraction can be treated valid only when the coercion has been prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee and thus confirmed the addition of Rs. 19,15,303/-. 4. Assessee's counsel Shri Goyal in his written submissions as well as orally contends that in the statement of the assessee dated 27.8.2008/28.8.2008 recorded at C-1, Mittal Chambers, C-Scheme, Jaipur and statement recorded at B-19, Sardar Patel Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, there were no any positive question on the basis of corroborative evidence or material showing undisclosed income or investment made by the assessee. No any document was found to show that the assessee was engaged in undeclared pharmaceutical business. Neither such show-room or shop was found nor any stock of medicines was found showing existence of undeclared medical business of the assessee in his individual capacity. No any bank account, purchase and sale bills were found to show the existence of such business. Furthermore, the assessee did not have drug licence, therefore, it was not possible to carry on business of medicines in his individual capacity. In absence of any documentary evidence revealing undisclosed income, the assessee was under good faith that the statement so made will not be used against him. The appellant, however, has repea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me earned outside books from unaccounted pharmaceutical business and such income stated to have been earned to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- and thereafter admitted of making the surrender of his income of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The assessee is a educated person. The assessee has not made retraction well in time. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in case of Hotel Kiran, 82 ITD 453 (Pune) has discussed elaborately the circumstances under which a valid retraction can be made. This retraction, however, does not meet such circumstances. The Assessing Officer at internal pages 5 to 7 of the assessment order has made elaborate discussion. The Assessing Officer has already given set off of Rs. 10,84,697/- against the income surrendered by the assessee in preceding years. Since the retraction is not valid and statement recorded under section 132(4) has evidential value, the authorities below have acted judiciously. Therefore, the addition cannot be deleted on the basis of self serving affidavit filed by the assessee. It, therefore, has been contended that the ground raised in appeal needs to be rejected. 6. We have heard parties with reference to material on record and case laws brought to our notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfactorily established that the shares had to be sold as the purchaser of the Jaswant Sugar Mills was not willing to purchase that mill unless the shares in the Straw Board Mills Ltd. held by the family were also transferred to him at the same time. On this point, the only material available on the record is the affidavit which was filed by the assessee before the Income-tax Officer. The assessee in his affidavit, had definitely stated that the purchaser wanted to purchase both the going concerns, the Jaswant Sugar Mills and the Straw Board Mills Ltd., together and one of his conditions of purchase was that all the shares of Lala Jaswant Rai, his sons and other relatives had to be transferred to the purchaser. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rejected this affidavit of the assessee on the mere ground that there was no documentary evidence in corroboration in the form of any correspondence of otherwise on this point. Shri G.S. Pathak contended rightly before us that the Tribunal was not entitled to reject the affidavit on this point on such a ground. After the assessee had filed the affidavit, he was neither cross-examined on that point, nor was he called upon to produce any doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... family members of the assessee. The assessee explained that jewellery belongs to various family members which includes the jewellery of 300 gms belonging to his two brothers, namely, Shri Lal Chand Mittal and Shri Madan Lal Mittal and jewellery of 240 grams belongs to his brother in law Shri Mukti Lal Agarwal who resides at Gram Ghatwada via Chomu. The assessing authority rejected the explanation given by the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed evidence in support of this claim and he treated the jewellery weighing 968.43 gms as unexplained and made the addition of Rs. 10,21,135/-. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) accepted the jewellery of 170 gms claimed by assessee as belonging to Smt. Ritu Mittal, daughter-in-law of the assessee residing at the same premises as explained by giving the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and allowed relief of Rs. 1,96,517/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 8,24,618/- by treating 798.430 gms jewellery as unexplained. 10. The assessee's counsel Shri Goyal in his written submissions as well as orally contends that in search statement the total surrender against jewellery possessed by the family of the assessee and family of his brother Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tax in the hands of Shri Praful Mittal, the assessee. It is pertinent to mentioned here that on query it was explained vide letter filed on 11.08.2010 that the jweellery was purchased out of unaccounted income offered to tax of Rs. 27,15,292/-. It was further claimed that purchase of jewellery evidenced by transaction recorded on page 20 of annexure A-2 seized from B-19, Chomum House, Jaipur. The assessee contended that on page 20 of annexure A-2 seized from B-19, Chomu House, Jaipur narrates details of purchase of jewellery of Rs. 3,41,875/-. The contention of the assessee is not acceptable on account of the fact that the said paper is a dumb documents without any date and entries difficult to understand, cannot be treated as a bill for purchase of jewellery. Therefore, no credit of jewelllery purchased on the basis of this document will be allowed while computing the explained/unexplained jewellery found from various premises of the group and considered after detailed discussion in the hands of Shri Radheyshyam Mittal in A.Y. 2009-10." The copy of income-tax return and assessment order of Shri Praful Mittal for assessment year 2009-10 was placed on record at paper book pages ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the undisclosed investment in jewellery/cash in the hands of the partner. 12. On the other hand, the Ld. D/R contends that the assessee has not spelt out the details of jewellery claimed in search statement belonging to Shri Mukti lal Agarwal. The assessee has not filed any evidence in support of this claim that 240 gms jewellery belongs to Shri Mukti Lal Agarwal, 258.43 gms jewellery purchased by Shri Praful Mittal from his unaccounted income and 300 gms jewellery belongs to Shri Lal Chand Mittal and Shri Madan Lal Mittal. Further, the assessee has not stated this fact in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that the jewellery belonging to Shri Lal Chand and Shri Madan Lal Mittal was lying at his residence. It, therefore, has been contended that the ground raised in appeal needs to be rejected. 13. We have heard the parties with reference to material on record and the case laws brought to our notice. In the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, recorded on 27.08.2008 a specific question no. 8 was asked whether the assets belonging to any other person was lying with the assessee. In his reply to this question, the appellant stated that jewellery about 15 to 20 tolas belonging ....