TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,76,68,829/- which was added by the Learned assessing officer without any basis and also without considering the facts that declaration basically related to unaccounted sales, which has already declared by the assessee and some part separately added in income and all the additions on the basis of papers found during search has been made in the relevant years, hence the addition on the basis of difference in amount declared u/s 132(4) and included in returns is illegal, unjustified and bad in law." 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides at length and case-records perused. 3. Brief facts relating to the present appeal are such that the assessee is an individual and has income from business of grains. The assessee filed the return of relevant AY 2016-17 on 10.12.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 93,26,060/-. While completing assessment, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- on the basis of declaration made by assessee during a search action u/s 132 taken by department on 07.01.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee contested AO's action in first-appeal but could not succeed. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 4. The AO has dealt the impugned addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 1,76,68,829/-. Ultimately, vide Para 13.5 of assessment-order, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- by concluding thus: "13.5 Considering the facts discussed above and also considering the fact that there is voluminous seized record with the multiple transactions on each pages, it is to be mentioned here that amount of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- proposed to be added is though on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, yet it is also based on incriminating document and I am satisfied that this amount of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- is also emanating from the seized document. The reconciliation of each and every seized document considering the voluminous nature is extremely difficult if not impossible, hence the addition of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- is completely justified to prevent the leakage of revenue. Hence, the amount of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- is added to the total income of assessee for AY 2016-17." 5. During first-appeal, the CIT(A) upheld AO's order. The final conclusion taken by CIT(A) on Page No. 15 of his order, is re-produced below for an immediate reference: "(j) Thus, from the above analysis, it emerges that: i. The retraction was made after a period of twenty-three mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... commitment. In fact, the assessee is abiding by his surrender but the assessee's prayer is to look the circumstance and context in which the surrender was made. From the statements of assessee u/s 132(4) as wells as notings made by AO in assessment- order, it is clearly discernible that the assessee made a lump sum surrender of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- because it was not possible to instantly explain the seized documents and work out exact figure. That is why, the assessee even stated to authorities that he would subsequently make submission for head-wise and year-wise income after analysis of the documents. Thus, the surrender itself was not absolute; one can easily infer that the surrender was subject to further analysis. Subsequently, after search and before filing return, when the assessee made analysis, it was found that a part of the surrender was only corroborated from documents and not the entire sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. Therefore, the assessee-group declared income of Rs. 2,36,68,100/-. Still, the AO made a separate addition of Rs. 86,63,071/- on the basis of seized documents. Thus, after entire exercise, there left a balance of Rs. 1,76,68,829/- which was unsupported by any pi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t harping on retraction point. What the assessee is submitting for kind consideration is that his surrender of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- must be seen in the context and situation in which it was made. Ld. AR submitted that the statements clearly demonstrate that the assessee made surrender of a lump sum figure and undertook to provide details after examining seized documents. But ultimately after carrying out analysis, the assessee found a part of the surrender having corroboration from seized documents; accordingly, the assessee offered income in return of income. For remaining part, there was no document, hence the assessee did not make any offer. Ld. AR questioned "What is wrong in assessee's approach?". (ii) Ld. AR submitted that it is wrong to say that the assessee has not made submission to AO. In fact, immediately after receiving show- cause notice dated 16.11.2017, the assessee filed a detailed reply to AO which is filed at Page 43-53 of Paper-Book. 9. We have considered the foregoing rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as also the documents filed in Paper- Book to which our attention has been drawn. After a careful consideration, we find ....