AI Drafter 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the parties these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. Following common grounds of appeal have been raised in ITA No.211,212,213 & 214,/Ind/2019 On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed income admitted in the statement made u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Following Grounds of appeal have been raised in ITA No.216/Ind/2019 On the facts and circumstances of the cases, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of undisclosed income admitted in the statement made u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. From perusal of the above grounds we observe that the common grievance of the revenue is against the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the ld. AO on account of undisclosed income admitted in the statement made u/s 132(4) of the Act. As agreed by all the parties we will adjudicate this common issue on the basis of the facts of assessee namely Ramani Infrastructure and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....153A of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 of the assessee and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act for A.Y.2017-18. The instant appeal relates to A.Y.2017-18. This was the year during which search was carried out. Return was filed on 04.11.2017 declaring income of Rs. 7,23,390/-. Necessary information called was duly supplied. Ld. AO confronted the assessee with regard to the surrender of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- made for by the group for various concerns/individual and in the breakup of the surrender amount Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was stated to be surrendered in the concerns M/s. Ramani Infrastructure. In reply, it was submitted that the alleged surrender of Rs. 25,00,00,000/- was an estimated/projected figure and after analyzing the documents seized and other incriminating material, undisclosed income of Rs. 24,27,91,005/- was offered to tax in the application made before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and the same was accepted vide order dated 24.12.2018. Further it was submitted that since no incriminating material during search was found with regard to the assessee firm namely Ramani Infrastructure additional income of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was not offered to tax. However, Ld. AO wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above, it is seen that statement of Shri Arun Ramani was recorded on Oath uls 132(4) of the Act, at the Head Office of RICL on 03109/2016 as well as during the course of revocation of prohibitory order at the Factory premise of RIeL on 27/10/2016 wherein the assessee has Shri Arun ram ani himself declared in his own hand writing that statement was given without fear and without coercion and he js in sound state of mind. The statement was further read, understood and accepted by key persons of the group i.e. Shri Prakash Hariramani, Shri Vijay Hariramani which proves that there was no coercion and assessee wilfully offered the voluntary disclosure. II. It is also important to mention ether that the assessee firm had time to file its objections if any, in case of voluntary disclosure of income in front of Department before the notices u/s 153A has been sent to the assessee. But the assessee failed to do so and assessee is only raising its objection in the last submission dated 17/12/18. (iii) The disclosure of additional income is based on the vanous incriminating documents found, seized and confronted to Hariramani brothers, during the course of search action fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. The assessee failed to do so. Retraction without having reasonable cause and without any supporting evidences is not acceptable. The question of evidentiary value of a statement recorded uls.I32 (4) of the Act is no more res integra. When an assessee had made a statement of facts, he can have no grievance ifit is taxed in accordance with that statement. The reasonableness of the AO's approach may be appreciated that he had not made any enhancement or substitution in the amounts as offered/disclosed in the said statement. It was a statement pertaining to certain facts which were in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee. Those facts were disclosed to the Revenue Department. Thereupon those were accepted by the Revenue Department. Those facts were of such nature that there was no scope of existence of any other evidence. Affirmation of facts at best can only be done by the assessee in its own volition. If the assessee wanted to correct the said statement, then it was open for it to -=show the evidences to retract those facts. But no such evidence was furnished though an another chance was granted while explaining the entire issues at search pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was on assessee to prove that said declaration was made under any misconception of facts ;;- Since assessee had not taken any steps to rectify its declaration before authorities before whom such declaration was made, there was no valid reason for retraction of same after a gap of about two and a half months." The submissions made by the learned Counsel thoughtfully considered and are of the view that there is no merit in his explanation. It is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admissions are self-harming statement made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true. Section 17 of the 1872 Act defines admission to be a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact which has been made by a party to proceedings or its agent and others as per details given in section 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the 1872 Act. If ad admission has been made by a party to proceedings under section 17 and 18 of the 1872 Act, suggesting an inference that the income was unexplained then such an adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concerns and partnership firms comprised in the group. 2. Reference may please be made to the reply of Shri Arun Hariramani (assessee) in response to question number 25 at PB 3 reproduced as under - 3. From the above following is evidently clear - a. Disclosure made on behalf of other family members, proprietorship concerns, companies and partnership firms comprised in the group b. Lump sum disclosure of additional income of Rs. 25 crores which is vague, bald and adhoc c. No reference to any seized document/incriminating material on the basis of which disclosure of additional income has been made d. He shall provide assessee-wise and assessment year-wise breakup for the amount disclosed as additional income for himself and on behalf of other family members, proprietorship concerns, companies and partnership firms comprised in the group e. Disclosure made does not relate to any specific assessment year f. Disclosure made was acknowledged by Shri Prakash Hariramani, Shri Harish Hariramani and Shri Kishore Hariramani on 04.09.2016 as tentative and without reference to any breakup of Rs. 25 crores as to each assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum disclosure of income for group - The Income Tax Act, 1961 defines the term 'person' u/s 2(31). This definition does not mention any taxable entity as "group". Thus, there is nothing as "income for group" which is chargeable to tax. b. Breakup of the amount disclosed is subject to rough analysis, memory and seized records c. Tentative figures of the various assesses of the group d. Tentative figures are subject to modification/correction/revision with respect to individual assessee and the quantum of income 9. The addition made on the basis of such tentative figures and rough analysis and which was subject to modification/correction/revision has no legal sanctity and factual basis. 10. Statement of Shri Prakash Hariramani was recorded u/s 132(4) on 30.08.2016 at his residence E-1/193, Arera Colony, Bhopal. In response to question number 31 he has stated that - 11. From the above the reply of Shri Prakash Hariramani following is evidently made outa. Disclosure made on behalf of others namely RICL, Aaditya Foods, Trinity Organization, partnership firms, partners, directors, proprietors and group. b. Lump sum d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lump sum disclosure of Rs. 25 crores for which head-wise, assesseewise and year-wise details shall be submitted later on. 13. During the search operations, nothing was found to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources. The loose papers, hard disks, mobile data and books of accounts were duly explained to the authorized officer. Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent material that assessee has earned income other than the reported sources of income. Neither could Ld. AO bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. 14. While passing the impugned order, Ld. AO did not make reference to any incriminating material but the addition was made by referring to the disclosure made in the statement recorded during search operations. There is no nexus with the seized material and the declaration made in the statement recorded during the search operations. No reference has been made to any incriminating material found during the course of search which could be correlated to the alleged surrender of income earned by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akash Hariramani, more particularly when the break up given was tentative subject to correction/revision/modification. B. No reference to any incriminating material, addition made merely on the basis of disclosure made in the statement and no nexus with the documents seized/incriminating material 1. Assessee challenges the validity of addition being made without reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search operations. 2. During the search operations, in the statement of Shri Arun Hariramani at question number 25, it was asked - [AO page 3] "कृपया बताये की किया उपरोक्त के अतिरिक्त आप कुछ और कहना चाहते है?". All the questions prior to question no. 25 raised by the authorized officer relate to the documents seized during the search operations. Shri Arun Hariramani has duly explained these documents. From questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 2 cr. no reference to any incriminating material has been made forming the basis of addition. Such an addition without reference to any incriminating material/seized document ought to be deleted. 8. During the search operations, statement of none of the partners were recorded in the capacity as partner of assessee firm. 9. In the search assessment, any undisclosed income, which can ultimately be added, is only to the extent of any unrecorded assets/material found or any incriminating documents found as representing undisclosed income earned. 10. Reliance is placed on following judicial precedents wherein it is held that no addition is warranted in the absence of incriminating material - a. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) - Para 18 [CLPB ] b. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mechmen - [2015] 60 taxmann.com 484 - order pronounced on 10.07.2015 - Para 23 [CLPB ] c. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bench of Indore ITAT in the case of Mohd. Atique - IT(SS)A No. 30/Ind/2016 to 36/Ind/2016 - order pronounced on 16.02.2021 - Para 19 [CLPB ] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on was made by referring to the disclosure made in the statement recorded during search operations. There is no nexus with the seized material and the declaration made in the statement recorded during the search operations. No reference has been made to any incriminating material found during the course of search which could be correlated to the alleged surrender of income earned by the assessee from undisclosed sources. 13. During the search operations, nothing was found to establish that assessee is having any source of income other than the reported sources. The loose papers, hard disks, mobile data and books of accounts were duly explained to the authorized officer. Thus, Ld. AO made an allegation without bringing on record any cogent material that assessee has earned income other than the reported sources of income. Neither could Ld. AO bring on record any specific instance of the assessee having earned any undisclosed income or unexplained investment. 14. Reference may please be made to the table in the assessment order at page no. 24 which is reproduced as under - "Subject to the above remarks, total income for the assessee is com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the absence of reference to any incriminating material ought to be deleted. C. Addition made on the basis of the statement of third person which was never ratified/endorsed/acknowledged/confirmed by the assessee 1. Statement of Shri Arun Hariramani recorded during the search operations at the factory premise on 03.09.2016 - as reproduced at para A point no 2 above. 2. Statement of Shri Vijay Hariramani recorded during the post search proceedings at his residence on 27.10.2016 - as reproduced at para A point no.6 and 7 above. 3. Statement of Shri Prakash Hariramani recorded during the search operations on 03.09.2016 - as reproduced at para A point no. 10 above. 4. Disclosure in all the above mentioned three statements of three persons is made on behalf of other family members, partnership firms, partners, proprietorship concerns and companies. These statements were never confronted to the other family members/group concerns. They have not ratified/endorsed/acknowledged/confirmed the disclosure as made by the above mentioned three persons. No addition can be made by using a document not actually confronted to assessee. 5. The fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....32(4) as a piece of evidence against the person who has given the statement, such person can, however, retract the statement successfully if he proves that the statement was not given in a proper frame of mind or was given under duress and threat or under a mistaken belief of law. The revenue authorities are also required to corroborate the admission contained in the statement, with independent evidence, more particularly with the incriminating material found during the course of search relating to the admission made in the statement. 10.1 The word 'statement' is defined neither in the Income-tax Act nor in the Evidence Act, and, hence, it assumes its dictionary meaning of 'something that is stated'. 10.2 As per section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppel under the provisions of the law as contained. For an admission to be effective, corroboration with third party evidence is required. 10.3 It is well settled law that though statements recorded will have evidentiary value, yet such statements are not always conclusive proof since the person making the statement can re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stock, cash, any other moveable or immovable property was found which was not accounted, recorded or undisclosed. In the given situation, in absence of any unrecorded assets (being cash/bullion/immovable property, etc.) found and seized in the case of assessee, the only possibility for finding any undisclosed income relating to the assessee was by way of perusal of seized documents, which in fact is nil. 14. Under section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption is only on the basis of 'books of account' or 'documents' or 'assets' found in the course of search. Loose sheets are not books of account or documents. Therefore, presumption cannot be raised on the basis of noting on loose sheets. In absence of any cogent evidence or corroboration in support of the entries in loose sheets, no adverse conclusion can be drawn against the assessee on mere guess and pure suspicion. 14.1 It is important and vital fact in the instant case of the assessee that nothing incriminating was found during the course of conduct of search pertaining to or relating to the impugned addition made. The material which was seized in the search so conducted has been explained. For all the six assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4] 89 ITD 129 (Chd. ITAT) - order pronounced on 07.01.2004 - Para 24 [CLPB 245 ] b. Asstt. CIT v. Anoop Kumar [2005] 94 TTJ (Asm.) 288 order pronounced on 28.12.2004 Para 7 [CLPB 262 ] c. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K. Bhuvanendra [2008] 303 ITR 235 (Mad) held in Para 26 d. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jagdish Narain Ratan Kumar [2015] 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj) order dated 05.02.2015 Para 12 [CLPB 266 ] D. Principle of estoppels cannot operate against the provisions of Income-tax Act 1. As in the case of estoppel, it cannot operate against the provisions of statue. If a particular income is not taxable under the Income Tax Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of estoppel or any other equitable doctrine. Equity is out of place in tax law; a particular income is either eligible to tax under the taxing statute or it is not. If it is not, the Assessing Officer has no power to impose tax on the said income. Article 265 of the Constitution of India in unmistakable terms provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Acquiescence cannot take away from a party the relief t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 245D(1) by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission while granting relief to the assessee. Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made, documents on record and judicial precedents, addition made by Ld. AO of Rs. 1.50 crores merely on the basis of statement recorded during search and no nexus with seized documents/incriminating material, ought to be deleted. 11. Reliance was also placed on following decisions: S.No. Particulars 1. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. Ultimate Builders ITA No. 1 34/Ind/20 19 (IT AT Indore) 3. Sudeep Maheshwari IT A No.524/Ind/20 13 (IT AT Indore) 4. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC) 5. GTC Industries Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 284 (Mumbai - Trib.) (SB) 6. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com 290 (SC) 7. Mechmen [2015] 60 taxrnann.corn 484 (MP HC) 8. Sat ish Nema IT(SS)A No 149, 150 & 152/Ind/2016 (ITAT Indore) 9. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi HC) 10 Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) 11 Naresh Kumar Verma [2013] 32 taxmann.com 280 (ITA T Chandigar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.00 14. While giving above bifurcation Mr. Vijay Hariramani has stated that he looks after the financial matters of the group. Financial records of the group are voluminous. Detailed analysis of various years of the assessee-wise, assessment-wise with respect to quantum is not possible right now and substantial time will be needed to examine the records once copy of seized records provided. 15. We further note that following 5 concerns/individuals of the Ramani Group filed an application on 24.12.2018 before the Income Tax Settlement Commission offering additional income declared in the SOF at Rs. 24,27,91,005/-. Applicant's Name Status Additional Income Declared in the SOF M/s Rarnanllte=crearrr Company Ltd. Company Rs. 11,74,27,005/-. Shrl Girish Awatramani Individual Rs. 1,75,13,000/- Shri Vijay Hariramanri" . Individual Rs. 39,97,OOO/- M/S Windsor Infra Firm Rs. 1,46,58,OOO/- M/S Ishaan Builders And Developers Firm Rs. 8,91,96,OOO/- Total Rs. 24,27,91,005 16. The above stated amount was offered to tax and taxes were duly paid and Income Tax Settlement Commission vide its order dated 24.12.2020 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement recorded u/s 132(4) on 03.09.2016/04.09.2016. The relevant part of the statement i.e. answer to Q.No.25 is reproduced as under:- The above statement clearly shows that it was a bald & adhoc statement of declaration without reference to any assessment year or any specific paper/document, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles of things found in the search. 4.2.2 That the subsequent to the aforesaid statement, the statement of Vijay Hariramani was also taken u/s 132(4) on 27.10.2016. The relevant portion of the statement is as under:- From the reading of the above statement, it is abundantly clear that Vijay Ramani said that it is a tentative break up of the figure of income. He further said that the tentative figures of income are subject to modification/correction/revision with respect to individual assessee. The relevant para of the statement is reproduced as under:- "It is submitted that since I look for financial matter of the group and during the search, I was out of town. Papers and the financial records of the group seized are voluminous and, therefore, their detailed analysis of various years of the assessee-wise, asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) held that if there is no corroborative documentary evidence, then the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act should not be the basis for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court further held that" we are of the view that mere statement without there being any corroborative evidence should not be treated as conclusive evidence against the maker of the statement. The Jurisdictional Appellate Tribunal, Indore in the case of ACIT V s. Y ogesh Kumar Hotwani reported in 30 ITJ 353 (In d) held that no addition be made simply on the basis of statement u/s.132(4) without linking to books and other assets found. The CBDT has also instructed that there should be a focus and concentration on the collection of evidence of income, the relevant circulars are as under :- Confession of additional Income during the course of search &seizure and survey operation F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE &COMPANY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES Room No. 2541N0rth Block, New Delhi, the 10th March, 2003 To All Chief Commissioners of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmit undisclosed income during Searches/Surveys opriducted by the Department. It is also seen that many such admissions are retracted in the subsequent proceedings since the same are not backed by credible evidence. Such actions defeat the very purpose of Search/Survey operations as they fail to bring the undisclosed income to tax in a sustainable manner leave alone levy of penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light 2.I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey and to strictly avoid obtaining admisjon of undisclosed income under coercion/undue influence. 3.In view of the above, while reiterating the aforesaid guidelines of the Board, I am directed to convey that any instance of undue influence/coercion in the recording of the statement during Search/Survey/Other proceeding under the I.T.Act,1961 and/or recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/ coercion shall be viewed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and, therefore, the assessment wholly and exclusively based on confessional statement procured by the revenue authority then, there was no need to have elaborate provision in the statute. There was no need to use long arm of search to collect material for making assessment. Therefore, it is insisted that confessional statement should be corroborated some material to show that assessment made is true and fair Further in the case of Ms Aishwarya K. Rai V s, DC IT reported in 105 TTJ (Mum) (TM) 825/896 held that "it is well settled that a statement u/s.132(4) is not the last word, and if the person concerned retracts/clarifies the same subsequently on ascertainment of correct state of affairs and explains the same it can be allowed. Further in the case of Shrikrishna V s. Kurukshetra University reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 held that" any admission made in ignorance of legal rights or under duress cannot bind the maker of the admission. Mere admission cannot be bedrock or foundation of an assessment. Further in the case of Pushp Vihar Vs. ACIT reported in 48 TTJ (Born) 389 held that: it cannot be concluded that what the assessee said originally was sacrosanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onga Vs. DCIT reported in 269 ITR (AT) 1 (Del) held that " in the case of income tax proceedings, the confession statement made u/s.132(4) could be used in assessment proceedings only. Therefore, the assessee could retract either while filing the return or during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle has also been followed by the ITAT Nagpur Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Sadhuram Wadhwani reported in 81 TTJ (Nag) 839. The assessee also refers a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal reported in (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad), wherein the Hon'ble Court held that "we are of the considered view that, for deciding any issue, against the assessee, the authorities under the IT Act, 1961 have to consider, as to whether there is any corroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the IT Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are of the opinion that the addition made by merely based on statement u/s 132(4) without linking to the seized books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jeweller)" other valuable articles or things is not sustainable in law 4.2.7 No documents/incriminating material or any other assets have been found in his control and possession which may suggest remotely that the assessee had income/investment of Rs. 2 crores in A.Y. 2017-18 and, therefore, in absence of any evidence simply on the basis of statement of third person, addition of Rs. 2 crores is neither lawful nor justified. The appellant while filing the application before the settlement commission declared additional income as under which has been earlier disclosed in the individual hands:- Applicant's Name Status Additional income declared in the SOF Tax payable on additional income declared M/s Ramani Ice-cream Co. Ltd. Company Rs. 11,74,27,005/- Rs. 4,03,17,647/- Shri Girish Awatrimani Individual Rs. 1,75,13,000/- Rs. 54,11,515/- Shri Vijay Hariramani Firm Rs. 39,97,000/- Rs. 49,39,138/- M/s. Windsor Infra Firm Rs. 1,46,58,000/- Rs. 2,9299,13,054....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....around Rs. 25 cr.) and paid tax of Rs. 8.11 Cr. (Appro..) in the name of five assessees namely M/s. Ramani Ice-cream Company Ltd., Shri Girish Awatramani, Shri Vijay Hariramani, M/s. Windsor Infra & M/s. Ishaan Builders and Developers. Fourthly, the impugned addition is made merely on the basis of statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act without making any reference or placing any nexus with any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act. 20. Now question before us is that in case no incriminating material was found during the course of search whether the Assessing Officer can make addition merely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. Although Ld. CIT(A) has referred to various judicial precedence, this tribunal in the case of M/s. Signature Builders in IT(SS)A.No.184 to 186/Ind/2018 & others dated 08.01.2021 adjudicated similar issue and the relevant finding is reproduced below: 70. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the records and submissions made before us. The assessee namely M/s Signature Infrastructure has raised the common issue for Assessment Year 2013-14 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Builders (supra), we find that the common issue raised in Ground No.3 of M/s Signature Builders is identical to the issue raised and adjudicated in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders (supra). We therefore respectfully following the same and also in view of the identical fact that impugned addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O was purely based on the statement given u/s 132(4) of the Act and there was no reference to any incriminating material found during the course of search which could support the impugned addition. We therefore delete the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- for Assessment Year 2014-15 and set aside the action by both the lower authorities and accordingly allow Ground No.3 of assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2013- 14 and 2014-15 raised in ITA No.185-186/Ind/2018. 71. We therefore respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders (supra) and also other facts of the case are of the considered view that the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- made for Assessment Year 2013-14&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 to 214 /Ind/2019 in the case of assessee(s) namely Aaditya Food Products, Smt. Seema Hariramani, Shri Harish Hariramani challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in each case and in the case of Arun Hariramani in ITANo.216/Ind/2019 challenging the deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer, we find that the the impugned additions are made solely on the basis of surrender of undisclosed income made in the statement given during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act but without referring to any incriminating material seized during search. Since we have already decided this common issue under the identical facts in the case of another group concern namely Ramani Infrastructure in ITANo.211/Ind/2019 in the preceding paras, we hereby apply the same decision and confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the impugned additions which needs no inference. Thus revenue fails to succeed. The Grounds of appeals raised by the Revenue in all these four appeals also stands dismissed. 26. In the result, all appeals of the Revenue in the case of assessee(s) namely M/s. Ramani Infrastructure, Aaditya Food Products, Smt. Seema Hariramani, Shri H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... की समसà¥à¤¤ firms, Companies और proprietorship concerns (M/s Ishaan Builders & developers ko as) rs 25.00 करोड़ ( पचà¥à¤šà¥€à¤¸ करोड़ रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡) की अघोषित आय को नियमित आय के अतिरिकà¥à¤¤ उपरोकà¥à¤¤ Firms, Companies proprietorship concerns (M/s Ishaan Builders & developers ko छोड़कर) की अघोषित आय के रूप में करारोपण हेतॠसमरà¥à¤ªà¤¿à¤¤ किया.....†Document 3 " . संपूरà¥à¤£ search & seizure की कारà¥à¤¯à¤µà¤¾à¤¹à¥€ के दौरान हमारा रवैà¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¨à¤¿à¤¯à¤®à¤¾à¤¨à¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° देय आयकर का à¤à¥à¤—तान करने का वचन करता हूं चूंकि मैने उपरोकà¥à¤¤ आय सà¥à¤µà¥‡à¤šà¥à¤›à¤¾ से सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° की है à¤à¤µà¤‚ मानसिक शानà¥à¤¤à¤¿ के लिठउपरोकà¥à¤¤ राशि सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° कर रहा हूं।.... " Document 5 पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¥ƒà¤¤ पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨. 5. कृपया बतायें कि कà¥à¤¯à¤¾ उपरोकà¥à¤¤ के अतिरिकà¥à¤¤ आप à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms 4 commpanie II] Preopens torship fionen (Ishaan Builder and.. Devlopers को छोड़कर) मे राशि 325, (e Zeil (fise Twenty five mg) की अघोषित आयॠपà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤šà¤¿à¤¨ तिशमित साथ के अतिरिकà¥à¤¤ करारोपन हेतॠwanathan Agraj की 132 (1) के अनà¥à¤¤à¤°à¥à¤—त) - ت W/2 समरà¥à¤ªà¤¿à¤¤ कर रहा हà¥à¤' मै निधारिति à¤à¤µà¤‚ कर निधारत वरà¥à¤·à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¥‡ Breakup दिनांक- तक विà¤à¤¾à¤— के समकà¥à¤· पà¥à¤°à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤ कर दूà¤à¤—ा | उपà....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ि उपरोकà¥à¤¤ राशि कडकन अदà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤·à¤¿à¤¤ आय पर आयकर का à¤à¥à¤—तान करने हेतॠनियम अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° समय दिया जायें। मेरे दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ सà¥à¤µà¥€à¤•à¤¾à¤° की गई 2. Hand कारो (31901 132 (1) के अति Ww राशि Beas crore 2. Jury 1/09/16. की अघोषित आय मेरे परिवार के सदसà¥à¤¯à¥‹à¤‚ की सहमति से कि गई है। मेरे दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ उपरोकà¥à¤¤ à¤....