TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee thereafter filed revised return of income on 10.12.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,85,82,880/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.7,73,27,830/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 18.02.2016 in Appeal No.220/14-15/1798 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,87,44,948/- on account of undisclosed income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring that the assessee himself disclosed additional income of Rs. 4,87,44,948/- in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act on 23.11.2011 and later on through letter dated 05.04.2012. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the assessee filed its original return on 30.09.2012 wherein amount disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the hands of M/s. Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and the same was offered to tax for A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13. It was thus submitted that since the amount of Rs.22,78,12,149/- has already been offered to tax in the case of M/s. Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., the tax has been paid on the same, the balance amount of Rs.5.22 crores was offered as income in A.Y. 2012-13 in the hands of the assessee and tax to the extent of Rs.1.61 crores including interest was paid. It was further submitted that the aforesaid disclosure in hands of the assessee was only a balancing figure without there being any asset or document to match the income. He, therefore, withdrew the disclosure of Rs.5.22 crores. The submissions of the assessee was not found acceptable to AO. AO noted that the assessee had made the retraction of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and the retraction was made after 132 days of recording his original statement in the course of search proceedings. He also noted that assessee had included a sum of Rs.5.22 crores in the return of income filed on 30.09.2012 and also paid the tax to it. He, therefore, concluded the retraction made by the assessee to be an afterthought. He, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal income of Rs. 7,67,44.950/-, thus reducing the income by an amount of Rs. 4,81,62,070/- (Rs 7,67,44,950- Rs. 2,85,82,880). It is clarified here that the assessee has included alleged undisclosed income(net) of Rs.4,87,44,948/-, and the gross amount of Rs.5,01,00,100/-, and not the alleged undisclosed amount of Rs.5.22 crores. (iii) However, in the assessment proceedings, the A.O. did not accept the alleged revised return for the reason that : * the disclosure u/s 132(4) was made on 22.11.2011 and the bifurcation of the same was submitted before the Investigation wing on 05.04.2012, which was after 132 days of recording his statement, * the assessee was having sufficient time for verification of seized material and to determine the correct amount of the disclosure made u/s 132(4), for which bifurcation was also submitted, * assessee made the bifurcation of the disclosure, which was confirmed for the fact that return of income was filed on 30.9.2012, where additional income of Rs.5.22 crores was included , on which taxes were also paid, and * the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 22.11.2011 was voluntary . In view of the above facts , A.O. was of the opinion that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant was in possession of the undisclosed income of Rs 5.22 crores, in the form of any cash or asset(s) or any undisclosed investment, was found during search & seizure action or subsequently during assessment proceedings . It has also been submitted by the appellant that there is no evidence found as a result of search action, to point out the fact that the appellant has incurred expenditure of Rs. 5.22 Crores from undisclosed sources . (vi). It has also been submitted by the appellant there is no reference of any undisclosed bank account of the assessee, where the amount is deposited. It is further submitted that the CBDT has also issued Instruction No. 286/2/2003-IT Inv, dated 20.3.2003 that the A.O. should make addition on the basis of evidences collected during search and seizure action or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment order. In the case of the appellant, no evidence has been found during course of search and seizure action nor thereafter before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. CONCLUSION : On the perusal of the submissions made and argument given by the appellant, it is clear that the : * the disclosure made by the appellant for A.....