TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1476
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious other reasons and hence, the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The search action taken u/s 132 is illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case, hence all the consequent notices as well as subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. 3. Rs.1,17,20,000/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.1,17,20,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of alleged On Money paid by the assessee on purchasing of property in the name of son and nephew and also erred in not considering the material and evidences available on record in their true perspective and sense and presumptions. Hence, the addition so made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 3.2. The ld. CIT(A) has also grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition despite the fact as the AO h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement made by the buyer of the land. In doing, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the law of human probabilities as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal reported as 214 ITR 801SC and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC). 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee for adjudication of case wherein the ground of appeal Nos. 1,3 &,4 are related to one another and is being taken up together for adjudication 2.2 Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139(1)declaring the total income of Rs.3,08,160/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of digging, tilling and levelling of agriculture farm and commission on sale of agriculture produce of other farmers and also other sources income. In the case of assessee i.e. Jai Singh group a Search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out by Income Tax Department on 19/11/2016 at the premises of assessee. By virtue of search, a warrant was issued in joint name of assessee Jai Singh Yadav and his brother Gopal Lal Yadav. In the course of search various documents were found and seized by the department. On the same date a Search was also c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,17,20,000/-. 2.3 The assessee replied this show cause notice vide page -2 of the assessment order as well as letter placed at PB 73, wherein he had stated that the assessee had retracted from the statement through the affidavit placed at PB 1-6 and also asked the AO to provide cross examination of Sh. Harpal Yadave and also to provide the seized documents found at Sh. Harpal Yadav Premises. However, the AO has not accepted the request of the assessee and stated that request of assessee for cross examination is not acceptable as the right of cross examination is not an absolute right. The AO has also stated that the affidavit in respect of retraction against statement u/s 132(4) is not found acceptable because the statement of assessee were recorded in the presence of two witnesses. The AO had drawn inference that the practice of "on money" payment in cash is widely prevalent in the real estate market. The AO also observed that the claim of misrepresentation was not made by the assessee as well as his group till seven months after the search. The AO held that the claim made by assessee in the affidavit is merely unsubstantiated allegation which can only be considered as an afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the property purchased i.e. Shop No. 16 had been purchased jointly by sons and nephews of assessee. The said transaction does not relate to the assessee. Shop was purchased in year Aug.,2015 while as per alleged statement of Sh. Harpal Singh the transaction is said to have been done 2-3 years back which itself is contradictory. No addition can be made merely on the basis of statements of third person without documents substantiating the said transaction/income. The assessee had, in his retraction statement, requested for providing the copy of statements of Sh. HarpalYadav but it has not been provided to him. Further assessee also seeks copy of relied upon documents in respect of said transaction so that further explanation with reason may be given. Assessee also asked to the ld. AO to give an opportunity to cross examine Mr. HarpalBYadav and any other person who claims to have paid amount exceeding the transaction amount as per purchase deed but the same has been rejected admittedly. Assessee has not surrendered any undisclosed income on this account. 1.2 Covered by the Honble Supreme Court: And it is very settled law that no addition can be made only on the basis of third....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) In case of Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax-world 454 (ITAT JP) Shri PawanLashkary ITA No 808/JP/2011 dated 06.01.2012 - Agarwal Warehousing & Leasing Limited VsCIT(2002) 257 ITR 235 (MP) State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Monga Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 67 TT] 247 (All.) In case of Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT [2013] 33 Taxmann.com 639 (Jaipur - Trib.),Hon'ble tribunal ruled that Where Assessing Officer, while making addition on account of 'on money' received by assessee on sale of land to a builder group, relied upon statement of director of that group and did not allow assessee to cross-examine said person, there was violation of principle of natural justice and, therefore, addition could not be sustained. The same has been upheld by Hon'ble Rajsthan High Court on 31/07/2017 and SLP by Revenue in Supreme Court has been dismissed. The jurisdictional Jaipur ITAT has consistently followed principles as laid down by Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries and gave relief to the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. And in the present case in support the assessee had filed his affidavit and the ld. AO has not rebutted the contents of the affidavit even he examined to the person it mean either he was satisfied or he has no material to disprove the same. If the AO has failed to give any comments thereon, then in-absence of the same how some comments can be made on the same without asking any question from the assessee for clarifications if any in the amount. An affidavit is the important piece of evidence, should not be taken in light and if there is any wrong affidavit is given by any of the party or person the same is offence and may be punished under the law. In absence of the same the same cannot be discarded but is the evidence of the acceptance. The affidavits are evidence until and unless not disproved by the authority who alleging the same. As Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code stipulates: "Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a decl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 Statements u/s 131 has been ignored: Furthermore it is very important to note that during the course of assessment proceedings, to verify the truth of the retraction affidavit filed by assessee, the statements of assessee were recorded u/s 131 on dt. 03.05.2018 by the ld. AO. In those statements, the assessee reiterated the contents of retraction affidavit and stated that he had not surrendered any undisclosed income as alleged in statements recorded on 19/11/2016. However the ld. AO has not spoken a single word on the statements recorded by him u/s 131 on dt. 03.05.2018 in the assessment order nor he stated that the statements u/s 131 are not correct or not acceptable, rather he rejected his retraction concealing or ignoring these vital facts and evidences and proceeded to make addition solely on basis of statements dated 19.11.2016. It shows the contradictory approach of the ld. AO. If there was any wrong in the statement u/s 131 the ld. AO should have initiated the penal proceedings. Both the statements must be read together. 2.3 .Search was carried out at the premises of Mr. Harpal Yadav wherein a loose slip is said to have been found on which name of 'Kailash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ements vide affidavit dated 19/06/2017 wherein he categorically stated as under: Also clearly denied in the statements recorded u/s 131 3. Correct Facts and Transactions: While overall looking to the search statements of assessee and his retraction affidavit, statement of Harpal Yadav and submissions during the assessment proceedings and the assessment order, the correct facts that emerges and the submission of assessee is as follows: Shop No. 16, Kardhani, Govindpura, has been purchased by sons and nephews of assesseeviz. Manoj, Rajkumar, Kailash and Shankar for Rs. 32,80,000/- and whole of the consideration had been paid vide 4 cheques of Rs. 8,20,000/- each. The assessee has himself not purchased that property. During assessment proceedings the assessee vide letter dated 05/11/2018, submitted the copies of the bank statements and ITRs of his sons and nephews to establish the transaction having been done by them on their own account. It was not that the assessee purchased shop for them. The learned AO did not bring this submission of assessee on record. Further it was Satya Prakash Bhutiya and Jitendra Bhutiya who sold the shop to sons and neph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating documents or material from which it can be inferred or which can suggest that there was income derived by the assessee in the year under consideration which was not disclosed by him prior to the date of search. Even no addition can be made in the assessment u/s 153A on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) in absence of incriminating material found during the course of search. Addition towards undisclosed income without establishing the basis found during the course of search could not be sustained. The assessment u/s 153A should focus on the basis of material and evidences gathered during the course of search. In this respect assessee relied upon the following judgments: (i) CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agrawal and others (2017) 299 CTR(Bom) 62 (ii) CIT and Anr V/s Lancy Constructions (2017) 295 CTR (Kar) (iii) CIT V/S KABUL CHAWALA(2016) 380 ITR 573.The ratio of above judgment is also followed in the case reported at (2017) 295 CTR (DEL) 466. (iv) PCIT V/s Saumya Construction P Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR(Guj) 387 If in relation to the assessment year, no increment material is found, no addition and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t no such fact has been brought on record by the learned AO and no action have been taken against Mr. KailashBhutiya. The assessee had requested the cross examination of person who says that assessee had paid the onmoney, but it was not given, which could only be for the reason that there is no person who received the alleged on money. 6.Covered matter on "On money": Further when the ld. AO herself made the addition of 5.00 crore in the hands of assessee and Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav on account of on money received by the assessee from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP where the director Sh. NirmalKedia has stated in his statements recorded u/s 132 (4) on dt. 19/20.11.2016 itself that he has paid on money of Rs.5.00 crore to Sh. Jai Singh (assessee) for purchase of 3 bhiga 18 biswa land from Sh. Jai Singh. And the addition has also been made in the hands of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP ( although the additions have been deleted in the appellate proceedings). Then when no addition has been made in the hands of the seller then why the addition should be made in the hands of the assessee. It means the ld. AO has deemed or accepted that no on money was received by Sh. Kailash Bhutiya otherwise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in same B-Block of Kardhani Scheme were also found(Page nos. 35 -58 of Exhibit No. 2 of Seized Documents). These shops were bearing no. 19 and no. 15were purchased in FY 2012-13 for Rs. 25 lakh and Rs. 24 Lakh respectively. Both shops are of same size as Shop No. 16 which is subject matter of this on-money and are also in the same B-Block in which Shop No. 16 is located. These are in-fact comparable transactions and established the true value of the property in the said area. It may be seen that while value of 1 shop in 2012-13 was Rs. 24 lakh it has increased to Rs. 32.80 lakh in year 2015-16 which is increase of approx.36% during 3 years' time frame which is practical. And both the lower authorities were keep mum on these vital facts. There was also no case of purchase of shop in lower rate of DLC. Thus the price at which this shop no. 16 had been purchased was reasonable and at or above the DLC rates declared by State. The presumption of valuing the shop at Rs. 1.50 crore is baseless. Although the purchase deeds were on record but the assessee again explained regarding purchase of all these shops in letter dated 05/11/2018. 9.As per Section 142(3) of Income T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld. AO has also not stated that why the addition is being made in the hands of the assessee and not being made in the hands of Sh. Gopal Lal Yadav. In absence of the same addition could not be made. 11. No addition could be made on the basis of a dumb document: The seized material and transaction noted on the loose paper found in the possession of third party did not reflects any transaction that only rough estimated paper, on this paper neither any date, nor any signature nor any correlated entry by the assessee found. Thus no addition can be made on basis of dumb document On this preposition the assessee referred following decisions. CIT v/s SM Aaggrawal 293 ITR 43(Del). CIT v/s Grish Choudhary 296 ITR 619(Del) CIT v/s Jai Pal Agrawal 91 DTR 327 (Del) ACIT v/s Rakesh Goyal 87 TTJ 151 (Del) Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (HUF)* vs. ACIT 63 TTJ 79(Ahd) In the case of Jayanti Lal Patel vs. ACIT & ORS. High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj). In the case Mahaan Foods Ltd. vs. DCITV ITAT, DELHI 'C' BENCH (2010) 123 ITD 590 v) ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan ITAT, JABALPUR BENCH (2008) 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... books of account nor any amount has been found credited in even any document, thus Section 68 is squarely not applicable in case of assessee and the addition made there under is illegal and void ab initio. Thus addition of Rs. 1,17,20,000/- made under section 68 should be deleted in full. 11.1. Further during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had requested for cross examination of Mr. Harpal Yadav, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Kedia and any other person who had owned the payment of on-money to assessee, by way of written request as well as orally. The assessee also requested for copy of document i.e paper slip on the basis of which Mr. Harpal Yadav gave his statements. But the ld. AO has neither given opportunity to cross examine nor she provided copy of paper slip in relation to which Mr. Harpal Yadav gave his statement. And on this aspect we have already submitted hereinabove. 11.2 The copy of statement of assessee recorded under section 132(4) were not given to assessee inspite of repeated oral reminders to ADIT(Inv) together with letters dated 11/01/2017 & 21/03/2017 . It was on 11/05/2017, that the assessee received copy of his statements from Central Circle-3. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admitted facts that the assessee has asked for the statements recorded u/s 132(4), After receiving the copy of statement he has retracted from the statement regarding the any On-Money given by him to Sh. Kailash Bhutiya through the Affidavit dt. 19.06.2017 placed at PB1-6 and after filling the retraction cum affidavit. The AO has also recorded the statement of the assessee u/s 131 on dt. 03.05.2018 wherein assessee has clearly denied of giving any On-Money of Rs.1,17,00,000/- to Sh. Kailash Bhutiya for purchase of the said Shop by his sons from sons of Sh. Kailash Bhutia, thus the retraction has been again confronted by the AO and assessee has affirmed the same again, the copy of the same is placed at PB 43-47. However the AO has not spoken any things and adverse on the statements recorded u/s 131 by herself during the course of assessment proceedings. Further when the assessee sought cross examination of Sh. Harpal Yadav the AO has straight away denied the same. When it is now a settled principal of law that no addition can be made only on the basis of statements of the third party without providing opportunity of cross examination of the person when specifically asked by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause Notice." Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer, while making addition on account of 'on money' received by assessee on sale of land to a builder group, relied upon statement of director of that group and did not allow assessee to cross-examine said person, there was violation of principle of natural justice and, therefore, addition could not be sustained. The same has been upheld by Hon'ble Rajsthan High Court on 31/07/2017 and SLP by Revenue in Supreme Court has been dismissed. It is noted there is the same position in the case of the assessee because no cross examination has been provided and it was against the Principal of natural justice, thus Respectively following the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Jurisdictional High Court , No addition is liable to made in the case of assessee also. Further when the assessee has retracted the statement through the affidavit and there was no material found in his possession as In Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that 'An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments of Harpal Yadav who gave his search statement u/s 132(4) in relation to the loose paper found in his premises but no material on this account was found in the possession of the assessee. As per the provisions of Sec. 153C, the material, if any, on the basis of which addition is to be made was not found in the premises of assessee then neither action could be taken under section 153A nor any addition u/s 153A can be made. The addition if any could have been made only after issuing notice under section 153C after recording the satisfaction by the AO of other search persons. In the present case the AO has not assumed any jurisdiction under section 153C rather than made the addition u/s 153A. The Honble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. CIT(Central) & Ors. V/s Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) & Ors. 432 ITR 384(Del) held as under: " 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein he admitted to providing ITA 23/2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted and grounds of appeal No.1,3 & 4 of the assessee are allowed. 3.1 During the course of hearing, the AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground No.2 which is dismissed being not pressed. 4.1 The Ground No. 5 of the assessee is regarding charging of interest 234B which is consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. 5.1 Now we take up Departmental Appeal in ITA NO. 168/JP/2022 wherein the solitary ground of the Department is deletion of addition of Rs. 2,44,93,451/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 5.2 Brief facts of the issue in question are that the AO has observed that it is was noticed from the statement of Sh. Nirmal Kumar Kedia in his statement recorded u/s 132(1) during the survey proceedings on 20.11.2016 at his business premises in reply to Que. No. 8,9 &18 wherein he has admitted that he had purchased 3 bhiga 18 biswa land from Sh. Jai Singh Yadav at a consideration of Rs.8.10 crores ( Rs.3.10 crores by cheque and Rs.5.00 crore in cash as "On Money" to Sh. Jai Singh Yadav. The AO reproduced the relevant part of statement at page 7 of the assessment order. The AO stated that subsequently statements o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o addition can be made in income of assessee on this ground." However, the AO has not accepted the request of the assessee stating therein that request of assessee for cross examination is not acceptable as the right of cross examination is not an absolute right. The AO further stated that the agriculture land is not exempt from the capital gain because the land is situated within the municipal limit and purchaser Sh. Nirmal Kedia is authorized person of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, has confirmed in his statement that Rs.5,00,00,000/- was paid to Sh. Jai Singh Yadav against the above land. The AO stated that the total value of the property sold is Rs.8.10 Crores where assessee's share was ½ i.e 4,05,00,000/-. Thus the AO has calculated the LTCG of Rs.2,44,93,451/- and made the addition vide page 11 of the assessment order. 5.3 In first appeal, the assessee submitted the detailed WS(PB57-6) praying therein that When the addition has been deleted in the hands of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP no addition is required to be made here. It has also been submitted that Sh. Nirmnal Kedia has retracted from his statements and the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Honble ITAT has deleted the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r duress, coercion, and in the atmosphere of fear. Further, in view of several discrepancies pointed out by the assessee in recording of the statement, the recording of statement is against the principle of natural justice vitiated in law and no cognizance of these statements should be taken. 54. Furthermore, the detailed finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in this regard, has not been controverted by the ld. DR by brining any positive material on record. Considering the judicial pronouncements relied on by the ldCIT(A) vis a vis quoted by the ld AR and ld DR during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding so recorded by the ld CIT(A) resulting into deletion of addition of Rs. 5.00 crores. Hence, this ground of the revenue's appeal is dismissed. In view of the categorical finding of the Honble ITAT Jaipur deleting the aforesaid addition of Rs.5.00 crore in the name of M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, ther remain no grounds of treating the alleged on money of Rs.5.00 crore to have been received by the appellant. Further, the appellant has contended that the said transaction of sale ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of statements of some person without documents substantiating the said transaction/income. Furtherassessee also seeks copy of relied upon documents in respect of said transaction. Assessee should also be given an opportunity to cross examine Mr. Nirmal Kedia and any other person who claims to have paid amount exceeding the transaction amount as per purchase deed. Assessee has not surrendered any undisclosed income on this account. Thus no addition can be made in income of assessee on this ground. Further submission vide letter dated 05/11/2018: Receipt of 'On money' of Rs. 5 Crore from Mr. Nirmal Kumar Kedia on sale of agriculture land. The assessee reiterates his submission that he had not received any on-money from Nirmal Kumar Kedia in transaction of sale of agriculture land to M/s kedia Real Estate LLP. As per the statement of Nirmal Kumar Kedia he had given 1 post dated cheque as security for payment of Rs. 5 crore. No normal person will leave Rs. 5 crore on security of a post dated cheque. The statement of Nirmal Kumar Kedia is misleading and seems to have been made with some other motive. No other document except his statement has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in some manner like deposit in bank or unexplained investment in some asset, but no such instances are there. Further logically speaking nobody will leave a huge amount of Rs. 5 crore on security of a post dated cheque. The alleged cheque of Rs. 5 crore has also not been found from any of the searched premises. The assessee had submitted letter dated 05/11/2018 in this regard, but it has not been referred in the assessment order. The assessee had also requested twice for cross examination of Mr. Nirmal Kumar Kedia to bring out correct facts, but the learned AO did not give this opportunity to the assessee. Thus on addition can be made on the basis of third party statement without any evidence and cross examination. On this plea kindly refer our ws in assessee;s appeal submission in Para No.1 page 5-11 as also here our submissions. 7.There is no case of non- payment of tax on sale of agriculture land to M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP. In fact the assessee had declared the sale transaction of Rs. 3.10 crore in his ITR and claimed exemption under section 54B and there is no evasion of tax. 8. Assessee is illiterate and does not understand the nitty g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sohan Lal Gupta v. CIT (1958) 33 lTR 786 at I 791(All), it has been held that If an affidavit is filed by an assessee and he is neither cross-examined on that point nor is he called upon by the department to produce any ' t documentary evidence, the assessee may assume that the Income tax authorities are satisfied with the affidavit as sufficient proof on that point in question. 3.4.2 We would also refer to CBDT Instruction F No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated 10/03/2003 regarding 'confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure and survey operation' wherein it has directed as under: "Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessees while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, on confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r purchases of agriculture land purchased from Shri Jai Singh Yadav. The addition was made solely on the basis of search statement of Shri Nirmal Kedia partner of the assessee, which were retracted later-on, without having any corroborative evidence/document to prove the same to be correct. 39. It is clear from the record that no corroborative or incriminating material was linked to the addition. The A.O made the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- merely on the basis of statement of assessee recorded u/s 131 of the Act during the survey at Sanganer Office and was subsequently confirmed in statement u/s 132(4) at residence "Kedia House". The AO has not pointed out any material, seized document, incriminating material to support the addition. 50. It is clear from the record that the partner of assessee retracted from the statement on this issue as soon as the copy of statements were provided, therefore the retracted statement does not have any legal value in absence of any corroborative material. The income tax department carried out search/survey and seizure operations over the assessee group and during the course of search/survey no evidence/documents was found to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s already been dealt with hereinabove in the case of Shri Jai Singh Yadav (supra), brother of the assessee, where the ITAT has confirmed the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.2,44,93,451/-. Therefore, the decision taken by us in the case of Shri Jai Singh Yadav (ITA No. 168/JP./2022) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Shri Gopal Yadav. Thus, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2022 ============= Document 1 पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾ 47 के सनà¥à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤ में: पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ संखà¥à¤¯à¤¾ 47 मà¥à¤à¤¸à¥‡ जैसा लिखा है वैसा नहीं पà¥à¤›à¤¾ गया व इस समà¥à¤¬à¤¨à¥à¤§ में मैंने à¤à¤¸à¤¾ कोà¤....