TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. While admitting the appeal on 22nd February, 2017 the following question of law was framed: "Did the ITAT fall into error in holding that the surrender made by the assessee in the course of the survey and confirmed two months later in writing, was deserved to be deleted in the circumstances of the case for lack of any corroborative material" 3. The facts are that on 20th October, 2008 a survey under Section 133A of the Act was undertaken. Nearly two months later, on 18th December, 2008 by the Assessee submitted the following letter on his own before the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation): "Respected Madam, Kindly note that survey proceedings were carried out at my premises on 20-10- 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sir, Re:- In the matter of Sh. Avinash Kumar Setia withdrawal of surrender declaration made during survey operation conducted u/s 133 A of the Income Tax Act 1961 This is to inform you that during survey operation conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961 declaration was made vide letter dated 18/12/2008 making a surrender of Rs. 1.25 crore in my Individual case as well as any other associate concern in which I had interest. That the said declaration was made u/s 133(A) of the Income Tax Act -1961. In this connection it is submitted that letter for declaration was given to Investigation was filed to remove the pressure of the Income Tax Authorities and it does not represent true and correct picture of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e captioned subject and also based on the various judgements, it is a well established precedence that in the absence of any evidence, no addition is required to be made for any adhoc declaration made by the assessee. And for this proposition of law we rely on the judgement:- a) Paul Mathew & Sons v. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) b) Sanjeev Kumar Pandhi v. CIT 305 ITR 101(P&H) c) Abhi Developers v. ITO 12 SOT 444 (Ahm) In view of the above facts as informed earlier, no incriminating documents seized/found during the course of suggesting the undisclosed income nor any such documents were confronted by the assessing officer which can result into an addition of additional income of Rs. 1.25 crore. Hence no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h stage "the Appellant has been employing a ruse to escape from the rigours of law. By not providing the basic details in a coherent manner, the Appellant has prevented the Revenue from examination of his affairs. Therefore, the disclosure of the unaccounted income quantified at Rs. 1,25,00,000 by the Appellant and admitted voluntarily deserves to be accepted." 8. The CIT (A) then discussed the decisions relied upon by the Assessee and the Circular of the CBDT. It was noted that the reliance placed by the Assessee on the said circular was misplaced "since it deals with the directions to the officers not to obtain declaration during search and survey. In the case in hand, no declaration was obtained by the officer, assessee himself ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. As observed by the CIT(A), the Assessee voluntarily made a declaration two months after the survey. There was absolutely no compulsion on the Assessee to make such a declaration. The Assessee waited for two years to resile from the said declaration. The submission of learned counsel for the Assessee that since he had filed a return on 26th September, 2009 without disclosing the sum of Rs. 1.25 crores, he should be deemed to have resiled from the said declaration cannot be accepted. The retraction in writing happened only on 16th December 2010. It was much too delayed to be taken to be bonafide. The circumstances under which the retraction was made has also not been explained. The Court finds that the above retraction, without any expl....