TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 367
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd cross objection of the assessee are reproduced as under: Grounds of Appeal of Revenue: 1. The order of ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- made by AO on account of unexplained expenditure/ investment. Date of pronouncement 02.08.2021 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal. Cross Objection for A.Y. 2012-13 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in not deciding the issue that the protective assessment made in the hands of appellant is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The fact of this case is that a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Krishna Maruti Group and also at residence of the appellant on 21.10.2011. During the course of search, statement of the appellant was recorded and he has confirmed to be the controlling person in his capacity as director etc. to the various group companies. In his statement the appellant offered Rs. 100 crores as overall disclosure by the group ,as additional income, as follows, based on the documents seized during the course of search:- S. No. Company Name Financial Year Amt. (In Crs) 1. SKH Auto Components Limited 2004-05 1.61 2. SKH Auto Components Limited 2005-06 2.91 3. SKH Auto Components Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been offered in the hands of any entity of the group companies, nor in the hands of appellant. The AO made a protective assessment of Rs. 12 crores in the hands of appellant taking into account such disclosure during the course of search and also looking to the petition filed by one of the group company M/s HH Interior and Auto Components Ltd., before Settlement Commission. , 7.3 As mentioned earlier, the appellant raised various objections with respect to the said addition during appellate proceedings. It was disputed that the statement is unreliable as no oath was administered, statement recorded at midnight. In this regard, it is observed that there are two statements of appellant recorded in the process of search. First stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s retained by the appellant, which clearly shows that no infirmity in the statement recorded, especially when the same is made on the basis of the documents seized during search. Flence the contention of appellant is not tenable in this regard. 7.6 The disclosure has been made on the basis of the seized documents and voluntarily by the appellant, therefore to argue that no corroborative evidence was found during search is not correct. 7.7 Further, the retraction has been made only vide letter dated 24.03.2014, whereas disclosure made during search on 21.10.2011 which was further confirmed during statement dated 16.12.2011. Therefore the argument of the appellant is not acceptable as sufficient time was available with the a....