2016 (11) TMI 1025

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns of law arise in this case:- "A) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is justified in reversing a well versed order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,75,832/- on account of surrender during the survey under section 133A without appreciating the true intention of appellant in making the impugned surrender and without appreciating the trite law as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT v. S.Khader Khan Son, 79, DTR, 184 (SC) that no addition can be made on the basis of statement recorded in survey as section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person on oath and thus any such statement has not evidentiary value and any admi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed order passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is perverse and deserves to be set aside?" Re: Question-A 3. On 07.09.2006, a survey was conducted in the assessee's premises. During the survey, the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- on account of the discrepancies found during the survey. By an undated letter, the appellant stated that during the survey certain loose papers/documents were impounded and that there may be discrepancies in the documents or loose papers. The letter further stated that in order to avoid litigation with the department and for peace of mind the assessee agreed to declare net income of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- including book profit upto 07.09.2006 to cover up the difference in purchase/sale p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... possible approach to the matter. The same does not raise a substantial question of law. Re: Question-B 5. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had advanced certain amount to the partners which were not for the business purposes. The assessee had also borrowed unsecured loans from various persons on interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 6. The assessee claimed to have received the amounts from 12 parties. The Assessing Officer issued summons to these parties and only two of them responded. The Assessing Officer accepted these two transactions. He, however, did not accept the other 10 transactions. The parties were issued notices but failed to appear. A notice was issued to the assessee to show cause why these unsecured loans....