TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 846
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded at the time of search under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while making assessment by the assessing officer. 2. At the outset, it may be relevant to set out briefly the following facts: 2.1 The appellant is engaged in Jewellery and pawn brokerage business. While so, there was a search in his business and residential premises on 7^th and 8^th December, 1994, in the course of which, cash of Rs. 2,28,975/-, excess stock of gold jewellery to the extent of 3838 grams and silver ornaments to the extent of 117.894 kgs and advance of Rs. 1,50,000/- made to one K.C.Sampathkumar were recovered. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under section 132(4), during which, he admitted the unexplained income at Rs. 2,00,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant's mother-in-law by name Amsa Boi was also filed. 2.4 Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the Revenue carried the matter by way of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the said appeal. Therefore, this Tax Case Appeal by the assessee. 3.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4.In this case, the assessing officer, while computing the assessment under section 143(3), made the following additions: (a) Cash balance - Rs. 1,63,524/- (b) Value of unexplained gold jewels (2533g & Rs. 400/-) - Rs. 10,13,200/- (c) Value of unexplained silver Articles (117.894 kgs) - Rs. 79,045/- (d) Advanced alleged to have been made to Sampathk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd during the course of search that the jewelleries belong to the appellant's wife and the affidavit filed by the appellant from his mother-in-law was a self-serving document. Therefore, no credence can be given to this document, since it is not supported by any corroborative evidence. It was further observed that the statement of the appellant was not given by any force nor on any mistaken fact and no evidence was let in by the appellant to rebut the statement recorded under Section 132(4). The appellant should produce cogent evidence and mere assertion was inadequate to displace the strong evidentiary value attached to a statement recorded under section 132(4) of Income Tax Act,1961. Similarly, regarding son's jewellery, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Sampathkumar and another Rs. 50,000/- by way of cash. This amount was drawn from SB Account No.77, held in State Bank of India, Kaveripattinam. Now, the appellant stated that the amount was advanced by HUF, though he confirmed that this SB account belongs to him, this is not the correct position. As per the record, the amount was drawn from the individual account. Hence, there was no evidence to show that the amount was given from HUF account. 5.At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Sections 132(4) and 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which read as under: "(4)The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested." On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the statement recorded on oath carries a significant evidentiary value, which may be used by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings as a corroborative evidence along with documentary evidence material unearthed during the course of search and seizure action. Further, there is a statutory presumption with regard to books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found in possession or control in the course of the search that the same belong to such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al position in relation to a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was set out as under: a. An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. b. A statement made voluntarily by the appellant could form the basis of assessment. c. The mere fact that the appellant retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. d. The burden lay on the appellant to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by a strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definite evidence to come....