TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments identifed as Exhibit- 1 of Annexure AS was found and page 1-3 of this exhibit relates to original Ikaranama dated 17.09.2010 for investment in purchase of mine for Rs. 40,00,000/-. The said agreement was executed by Shri Jagdish Panjwani with Vijay Makhija, Prakash Makhija and Kapil Marwah. On 12.10.2011, shri Prakash Makhija has admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 40 lacs on account of investment in mines in his hands and in hands of his brother Shri Vijay Makhija. During post search investigation, Shri Vijay Makhija in his statement recorded u/s 131 has confirmed the admission made by his brother in latter's statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. However, while filing the return of income on 10.12.2011 which was later stated by the assessee and maintained as return filed in response to notice u/s 153A dated 15.01.2013, the assessee has not disclosed the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-, as his share of undisclosed investment made in purchase of mine and thereafter during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish his explanation in this regard. 4. In response the assessee vide his reply dated 12.03.2014 referring to the agreement dated 17.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wner of the mine but Shri Devkaran Sharma was the real owner of this mine is without any basis. It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Jagdish Panjwani made the admission in his sworn statement after having full knowledge of the transaction and there was no reason for him to make wrong statement against the assessee and his brother. In fact he is a relative of the assessee and was having real knowledge of the fact as the Ikrarnama was made by him only. In view of this fact, there is no reason to accept the submission of the assessee that he and his brother had not made any undisclosed investment in purchase of mine. It cannot be accepted that the assessee was not having the knowledge of this fact at the time of recording of his sworn statement during the course of search proceedings." 6. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the statement of Shri Prakash Makhija recorded u/s 132(4), statement of Shri Vijay Makhija recorded during the post search investigation u/s 131 as well as the statement of Shri Jagdish Panjwani recorded u/s 131 on 09.11.2011. Referring to the Ikaranama dated 17.09.2010 the ld. CIT(A) held that the said document was found and seized f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as simply enclosed a copy of the letter given in case of Sh Prakash Makhija. Further, assessee also failed to clarify as to why he took such a long time to file his retraction. As noted above, though at the close of the statement recorded it was duly verified that the same was made without any pressure but it was so alleged in the impugned retraction. Had there been any pressure or torture as alleged, the assessee would have complained the same to the Commissioner or to any other Authority. No such attempt was ever made. Law in respect of admissibility of a retraction is very well settled. There must be some convincing and effective evidence in the hands of the assessee through which he could demonstrate that the said statement was factually incorrect. An assessee is under strict obligation to demonstrate that the statement recorded earlier was incorrect, therefore, on the basis of those specific evidences later on retracted. Further there should also be some strong evidence to demonstrate that the earlier statement recorded was under coercion. In the present case, the retraction is general in nature and lacking any supportive evidence. Rather assessee took several months to retrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about the surrender made on account of investment in the mines. The Department never pursued the payment of the tax liability arising out of this surrender. The ld. AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, gave the assessee a copy of the statements of Jagdish Panjwani, which were recorded by the ADI (Investigation), Kota. Jagdish Panjwani has given adverse statements against the two brothers. Surprisingly, the assessee and his brother were neither confronted with his statements by the ADI (Investigation), Kota nor were they given an opportunity to cross-examine him. The assessee, vide reply dated 12.03.2014 made elaborate submissions before the ld. AO contending that the surrender made on the basis of the Agreement was blatantly wrong and was completely against the facts mentioned therein. Several rulings were cited in support of the contentions. However, the ld. AO brushed aside the submissions of the assessee and made an addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as undisclosed investment. The submissions of the assessee have been rejected by the ld. CIT (Appeals) too, based on an improper appreciation of facts/ law. A perusal of the material referred to above will show that the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firming addition of Rs. 12,25,000/- as undisclosed investment of the assessee in the house." 13. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the course of search & seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act, an original Ikrarnama dated 16.09.2008 found, inventorized and seized as per identification mark Ann. AS-1 from residence of Shri Vijay Makhija, S/o Sh Govindram Makhija. It is an agreement between Sh Ramesh Kr Jain and Sh Vijay Makhija dt 16.09.2008 for purchase of a house at 8/213, Swami Vivekananda Nagar Yojna, for which Shri Vijay Makhija had advanced Rs. 6 lacs in cash. Further, total purchase consideration mentioned in the said Ikrarnama was Rs. 20,75,000/-. The assessee in his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) has surrendered this amount, However, while filing the return of income in compliance to notice 153A of the Act, offered only Rs. 8.90 lakhs. The Assessing officer not convinced with the assessee's explanation has added the balance amount of Rs. 12,25,000/- and his findings are as under: "I have considered the reply of the assessee and not found it tenable. During the course of search proceedings, certain documents were seized from the residence o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 12,25,000/- on account of undisclosed investment. The retraction being general and vague therefore, deserves to be ignored. In view of fact and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not find any infirmity in the assessment order passed by the AO, accordingly addition made of Rs. 12,25,000/- is hereby sustained. Assessee's appeal in ground no. 1 fails." 15. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that a search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 12.10.2011, during the course of which, inter alia, an Agreement, dated 16.09.2008, was found and seized. The said Agreement was for purchase of a house for Rs. 20,75,000/- and an advance of Rs. 6,00,000/- was given by the assessee. This sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was offered for taxation during the course of search proceedings. In the post search proceedings, the assessee stated that the Registration Deed was executed for Rs. 8,50,000/- and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was incurred on registration. The assessee disclosed the amount of Rs. 8,90,000/-, being investment made in the purchase of the house. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the cost....