TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iple of natural justice and against the law. 2. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit of Rs. 45,142/- being gift received from father Shri Kantilal Jesingbhai Patel and agriculturist which is not taxable due to blood relation and exempt u/s. 56 of the Income Tax Act 1961 because it is below the limit of Rs. 50000/-. This act of AO is out of ambit of law. 3. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s. 68 as unexplained cash credit of Rs. 270000/- as per Page no.5 of Annexure A-1/2. This act of CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and out of ambit of law. 4. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by AO which was made by AO based on surmises & conjectures. This act of CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and against the law." Ground Number 2: Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming addition under Section 68 as unexplained cash of Rs. 45,142/- being gift received by the assessee from his father 3. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant facts, it is not disputed that the aforesaid gift was received by the assessee from his father. Further, the quantum of g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the extent of Rs. 17, 63,000/- on the basis of seized material. In further appeal, ITAT set aside the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. The Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order on 29.12.2017 making an addition of Rs. 60,15,000/- under Section 68 of the Act. 8. In appeal against the aforesaid order, Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave partial relief to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that as per noting submitted at Page number 17 of annexure A-1/3, the same shows receivable of Rs. 41 lakhs out of investment of Rs. 25 lakhs. On perusal of the relevant documents, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 41 lakhs, the assessee's share comes to Rs. 11,80,800/- (which is the sum total of investment of Rs. 7.20 lakhs made by the assessee plus the profits on such investment) and the same was liable to be taxed as unaccounted income of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected the contention of the assessee that the aforesaid amount relates to and should be taxed in Financial Year 2001-02 for the reason that for the year under consideration, the assessee was not maintaining any books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....foresaid order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-1 under Section 154 of the Act, it is evident that the same amount was also taxed in Assessment Year 2003-04 and hence, even the Department is unclear as to the year of taxability of this amount. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions have been made on the basis of notings in a diary, which cannot be sustained since the same cannot be considered as books of accounts for the purposes of additions under Section 68 of the Act. To summarize, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no specific adverse material found against the assessee so as to sustain the additions, the Department itself was in doubt as to the year of taxability of the aforesaid amount and the additions cannot be made under Section 68 of the Act on the basis of statement made by the assessee which has later been retracted by the assessee. 10. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the instant facts, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the aforesaid additions pertain to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h additions were made dated 23.05.2008 was also subsequently retracted by the assessee on July 5, 2008. It is a well established law that no additions can be sustained in the hands of the assessee on the basis of a statement which has been reacted by the assessee. In the case of Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee retracted from disclosure made in statement under Section 132(4) which was not accepted by Revenue, and if no undisclosed income was found during search, revenue could not make addition on bare suspicion and presumption. In the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat), during search conducted at assessee's premises, his statement was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act wherein he disclosed certain undisclosed income. After two months, he retracted from said disclosure contending that it was made at mid night under pressure and coercion. The Assessing Officer, however, made addition on basis of disclosure made by assessee in statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. The High Court held that merely on basis of admission, assessee could not be subjected to such addi....