2016 (7) TMI 923

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration: "(A)Whether on the the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the statement of the respondent as well as of the employee alongwith the documents seized would tantamount to evidence under section 158BB of the Income Tax Act or whether the statement recorded under section 132(4) has only very limited application ? (B) Whether the evidence found as a result of search or other such materials or information is sufficient enough to conclude that there was concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 10,54,698/- on account of On-money?" 2. Facts may be noted from Tax Appeal No. 1250 of 2011. The appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.03.2011. The respondent-assessee i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal which the Revenue has challenged before us. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in deleting the amount as assessed by the Assessing Officer. He further contended that the second issue is covered by decision dated 18.07.2012 of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amar Corporation in Tax Appeal No. 26 of 2012. 7. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, to answer the first question framed in this group of appeals, we may refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer: "So far as first factor is concerned, the retraction of the statement was made by Shri Chimanlal Shah by making an affidavit whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s on the basis of such loose papers, the addition on On-money account was sought to be made. That material could not have been used for the subsequent years for making addition on the same count. The addition in the Assessment Year 2004-05 was not sustained by the Tribunal in the appeal before it on the ground that the Assessing Officer ought to have confined himself in respect of sale transaction of one particular flat and he could not have on that basis calculated the addition for all flats. Accordingly, in respect of previous Assessment Year 2004-05, it was held by the Tribunal that the addition for Onmoney, made in the said year was not proper inasmuch as such addition could have been made only in respect of the flat in respect of which....