2018 (7) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n short "the Act") dated 29.12.2012 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made in the sum of Rs. 60 lacs by the ld. AO based on the surrendered sum made by the assessee at the time of survey, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee is a partnership firm deriving income from transportation and commission agency. It had filed its return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 3,15,760/-. There was a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 23.02.2010. During the course of survey, certain documents were impounded as annexures ETS-I, ETS-I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 lacs 717704 04.03.2010 Rs. 5 lacs 717705 10.03.2010 Rs. 5 lacs   The assessee honoured these cheques, but however claimed refund of Rs. 23,82,006/- while filing the return of income after declaring total income of Rs. 3,15,760/- . The assessee before the ld. AO stated that the firm is represented only by Mr. Alok Kumar Jain and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Samal and both were not present at the time of survey. It was specifically stated that Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain who was present at the time of survey was not authorized to give any statement on behalf of the firm. Accordingly, the assessee firm duly retracted the disclosure given by Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain as unauthorized by the firm. It was pleaded before the ld. AO at the time of assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ill. The Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the CBDT instruction in F. No. 256/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the board has specifically instructed the survey officers and search officers not to record any confession statement from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that: "In the case of the assessee, the action u/s. 133A of the Act was correctly taken up at the address of the Firm at 115, College Street, Kolkata - 700 012 and some papers/books were collected by the A.O. from there. However based on a statement by one Sri Subhankar Dey, the A.O. conducted another survey' at the premises No.47A, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016 believing that the books of account of the assessee are kept there. This action of the A.O. is disputed. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by the Supreme Court in this case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan son (2012) 254 CTR 228(SC.). Thus even if the statement recorded during the course of the survey is not of any evidentiary value, it can be used to 'support' the findings of the survey. But in the instant case there are no documents or details with the A.O. suggesting any evasion of tax. The sole argument of the A.O. is that Sri Ajay Kumar Jain had been entrusted with signed blank cheques by the Partners in case of any need and that Sri Ajay Kumar Jain had given three cheques to the survey-team totaling Rs. 20,00,000/- as tax on the surrendered sum of Rs. 60 lakhs. Further the cheques were deposited only on 01.03.2010, 09.032010 & 15.03.2010 and the assessee did no....