TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f financing, trading and investments in commodities and shares, mutual funds, real estate and beverages. A search warrant was executed in the case of the assessee M/S. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. and the panchnama was also drawn in its name. The last authorization for the search u/s 132 of the Act was executed on 21/04/2015. The Assessing Officer records that during the course of search operations, at the office premises of the assessee, the documents marked as GG/IO (Page-28) & GG-2 (Page- 7) were found and seized. Scanned copies of these documents are extracted at page 3 & 4 of the assessment orders. At page 4 & 5 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer states as follows:- "On perusal of the said documents it is revealed:- a) Page-28 of GG-IO contains hand written recordings at the bottom that cash to the extents of Rs. 25 Crores were paid on 05.04.2012 for arranging share capital/premium in Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. b) Page-71 of GG-2 contains hand written recordings at the bottom that cash were paid for arranging share capital/ premium in Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. (Rights issue) in the following manner:- 04.04.2014 - Rs. 5 Crore 08.04.2014 - Rs. 10 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p Ltd. The letter, retracting from the earlier recorded statement and making allegations against the Department is extracted by the Assessing Officer at pages 7 to 10 of the assessment order. Summary of this is extracted at para 4.2. of the of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer rejected these contentions of the assessee for the reasons given in para 4.3. pages 10 to 15 of his order. He made an addition of Rs. 25 Crores for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and Rs.15 Crores for the Assessment Year 2015-16. These are not extracted for the sake of brevity. 2.2. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Id. CIT (A). The Id. First Appellate Authority, deleted both these additions for the reason given at para 4 to para 8 (pages 24 to 26) of his order. The grounds on which the additions were made by the Assessing Officer and the reasons for which these additions u/s 68 of the Act were deleted by the Id. CIT (A) are identical for both the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16. 3. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The Id. CIT D/ R, Shri Imokaba Jamir, took this Bench through the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that on the seized document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/S. Bannalal Jat Constructions vs. ACIT in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 140/2018, judgment dt 31/08/2018, for the proposition that the reliability, importance and sanctity of admission made during search could be refuted only by cogent and convincing evidence and it is open to the person who has made the submission to show that it is incorrect. 4.1. He prayed that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored on this issue and that of the Id. CIT (A) to be set aside. 5. The Id. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Miraj D. Shah, on the other hand, controverted the submissions of the Id. CIT D/ R and submitted that the Id. CIT (A) has correctly appreciated the factual position and has come to a correct factual conclusion on this issue. He submitted that the documents GG/IO (page 28) was a copy of the balance sheet of SKB from 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003 and the notings in it refer to the date of April, 2012 which is 10 years after that. Similarly, GG/2 at page 71 refers to balance sheet of SKB from April, 2004 to March, 2005 and whereas the scribbling in pen at the foot of this document r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same amount in the hands of Shri Girdhar Lal Goenka. He prayed that the order of the Id. First Appellate Authority, be upheld. 5.1. In reply, the Id. CIT D/R, submitted that the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and that there is no evidence that the employee of the Group concern was forced to write with a pen, the writing in ink that appeared on the print outs taken from the pen drive. 6. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 7. A perusal of the seized documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer reveals that they are very old balance sheet pertaining to 1st April, 2002 to 31st March, 2003 and again to the period from 01/04/2004 to 14/03/2005, under the head SKB. There is no evidence as to whether the abbreviation SKB is an abbreviation of the assessee company M/S. Golden Goenka Fincorp Ltd. There is no denial of the fact that both these documents were printouts from the pen-drive seized from the employee of the Group concern of the assessee. if the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in reply to Question' No. 6 of the said statement that his statement given in response to earlier Q 21 was incorrect and that he was not in the proper state of mind while answering the queries back then. In sum & substance, he denied the contents of the document ID Marked GG/IO- Page 28. From the aforesaid facts it is therefore obsewed that although Shri G L Goenka in his initial statement recorded u/s 132(4) which is an important and decisive piece of evidence affirmed the notings on document ID Marked GG/IO- Page 28 but in his last statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he had specifically denied the same. 2. Subsequently, in response to notice u/s 153A the appellant-company filed return of income of In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) were issued which the appellant company duly complied with. In the course of proceedings, Shri G L Goenka also filed another retraction statement dated 09.04.2015 stating that he is denying the statement given on 17.03.2015 and that it was given under duress and coercion. The Ld. AO however was not agreeable to the same and he therefore show caused the appellant company to explain as to why the share capital to....