TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 upto 19.01.2001. 2.This Appeal has been admitted on the following Substantial Question of Law, vide order dated 02.09.2008: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3.A search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee, which commenced on 19.1.2001 and stated to have proceeded till 19.06.2001. During the course of search, certain loose slips were recovered, which showed several entries pertaining to cash and cheque transactions. The Assessing Officer noted that the entries show some specific details about the payments being made in cash and cheque and the entries are in evidence in support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide order dated 30.06.2003. The assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who rejected the contentions raised and dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 31.1.2006. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee was once again unsuccessful and the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.01.2008. This is how the assessee is before us, raising the above Substantial Question of Law. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the initial statement obtained on 19.1.2001 was retracted on 11.6.2002 stating that the earlier statement was obtained when the assessee was undergoing severe mental tension and the retraction should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and further, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-TAx, Chennai vs. T.Rangroopchand Chordia [(2016) 69 Taxmann.com 202 (Madras)], it is submitted that loose sheets, which were sheets constituted 'documents' under Section 132(4) of the Act. 7.After elaborately hearing the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find that the decision arrived at by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal are cogent and clear. The entire issue revolves around the factual matrix as to whether the slips, which contain certain details, were pertaining to payments made by the assessee, not brought into the books of accounts. Before the assessing Officer, the assessee has given more t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The notings are clear and it is not any scribbling, which shows the figures and also shows whether the payments were in cash or in cheque. The retraction made by the assessee, after a period of two years, was rightly rejected as an afterthought. As held in the case of T.Rangroopchand Chordia (Supra), the loose sheets are also 'documents'. In terms of Section 2 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, they can be relied upon. In fact, the Division Bench took into consideration whether the loose sheets seized from the premises of the assessee would constitute 'documents', within the meaning of exception under Sub-Section (4) of Section 132 of the Act and has held as follows: "21. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922(11 of 1922), or under this Act. 23. Therefore, in the light of the definition of the expression 'document' and in the light of admissibility of the said document based upon the statements made by the assessee, the additions made by the Assessing Officer cannot be found fault with. Though there was a retraction of those statements by the assessee, those retractions were rightly rejected on the appreciation of the....