TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gal and not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE in relation to the addition made by AO, without appreciating the facts of the case properly and judiciously. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or modify any of the ground/s of appeal. 3. The Brief facts culled out from the records are, that the appellant is an individual and engaged in jewellery business, as proprietor of M/s N.R. Jewellers. The appellant is also a director of M/s Suraj Rolling Pvt Ltd. In this case search and seizure operations u/s 132 were carried out on the business as well as residential premises of the appellant on 22.11.2018. Return u/s 139(1) was filed on 05.11.2019, declaring total income at Rs. 3,62,22,870/-, Notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued on 30.09.2020. During the course of search proceedings, appellant made voluntary surrender of gold, diamond jewellery and silver articles found from the residential premises amounting to Rs. 3,63,68,311/- and excess stock of Rs. 6,23,94,369/- from the business premises. However, at later stage the appellant during post search ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he previous year in which search is conducting (AY 9/20 in the case of present assessee) is required to be completed within a period of 21 months from the end of the financial year in which the last authorization of search was executed. 3. Sec. 153D provides that no order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by AO, in respect of each assessment year referred to in sec. 153B(1)(b), except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. "therefore, the assessment order for the year of search was also required to be passed with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner. The assessment order was passed by the AO on 21.06.2021 and in para 15 of the assessment order, it has been mentioned that the order was passed with the prior approval of the Addl. CIT, Range-central, Raipur dated 17.06.2021. 4. The "approval" of higher authority, as contemplated u/s 153D, necessarily requires that the approving authority is required to apply his mind to the seized material, queries raised by the AO during assessment, replies given by the assessee and the draft assessment order passed by the AO etc. Such application of mind should be evident from the records and the approval given u/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee very recently (via e-mail), when assessee approached him after receipt of letter dated 07.11.2023 of AO. Thus, the communications for approval u/s 153D were not available with the assessee at the time of filing 2nd appeal. For this reason, ground challenging validity of the approval u/s 153D could not be taken in the grounds of appeal. Your honours would kindly appreciate that the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not taking the above ground in the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo and therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the above additional ground may kindly be admitted, and the appellant may very kindly be allowed to argue on the same, per need of justice. 7. The above ground is a legal ground touching jurisdictional aspect, going to the root of the matter and all the facts relating to such ground are already on record. In the following cases, it was held that additional ground going to the root of the matter, can be taken at the second appeal stage, even if it was not taken before the A()/CIT(A): - National Thermal Power co. Ltd vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) - Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs CIT (1991) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry and cash neither he nor his mother have any knowledge and the same could only be explained by his father, the appellant. 3.1.1 Statement of appellant was also recorded on oath on 22.11.2018, wherein in reply to Q. No 11 the appellant has clearly admitted that the stock of the firm is kept only at the business premises and not kept at any other place. However, the appellant during post search investigation vide letter dated 30.11.2018 requested to consider the jewellery found from residence as stock of M/S NR Jewellers. The AO by rejecting claim of the appellant stated that the appellant itself during the course of search has admitted that the stock of the firm is not kept elsewhere except at the shop located at Sadar Bazar, Raigarh. Further, statement of the appellant was continuously recorded on 22nd, 23rd and November 2018 but within three days he never stated that the gold, silver and diamond jewellery found from residence belongs to NR Jewellers- Further, in reply to Q. No 52 of the statement, the appellant admitted that the unexplained cash and jewellery found from business and residential premises are his undisclosed income. 3.1.2 Further, on physical verification of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ewellers Pvt Ltd and M/S Briana Jewels. Further, majority of purchase have been made during the month of November between 3rd to 17th November 2018 from the said concern. The appellant during entire year has shown purchase of Rs. 9,93,61,343/- out of which purchase of Rs. 79199209775/- has only been made during the month of November which is nearly 73%. The appellant has also furnished bills of Rs. 8,33,99,443/- (including approval/jangad voucher) before the AO. Further, GST returns were also filed showing the purchase dates of November 2018. 3.1.4 The AO Further observed that out of all the purchase made by the appellant, jewellery valuing Rs. 4,51,58,324/- were retuned back to the sellers by showing sales return. The purchase from the said parties have been made on credit out of which majority of goods have been returned back and the payments have been made after 3-4 months. Also, none of the payments have been made before the date of search. During the course of search, various incriminating documents were found and seized. Page no 19, 24 & 32 of BS- 4 contain details of purchase made by the appellant. The appellant when confronted admitted that the stock was purchased before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om residential premises of the appellant stock of Rs. 3,63,68,311/- was found out of which stock of Rs. 20,85,006/- was not seized in view of CBDT Circular No 1916 and the same has already been held genuine vide para 3.1.12 of this order. Therefore, unrecorded stock of Rs. 3,42,83,305/- (Rs. 3,63,68,311/- - Rs. 20,85,006/-) was found from residential premises of the appellant. Therefore, total unrecorded stock of jewellery of Rs. 9,66,77,674/- was found during the course of search. Various loose papers were found and seized which contain details unaccounted purchase of jewellery to the tune of Rs. 8,33,99,441/-. The brief details of noting made on page no 19, 24 & 32 of BS-4, which has also been prepared by the appellant are as under:- Sr. No. Item Weight (gms) Amount (in Rs.) Noting in loose paper 1. Gold Ornaments 4,570.340 1,27,33,654 BS-4/32 2. Pure Gold 260.650 8,38,967 BS-4/32 3. Pure Gold 310.290 9,98,746 BS-4/32 4. Pure Gold 205.140 6,60,295 BS-4/32 5. Pure Gold 228.920 7,36,837 BS-4/32 6. Studded Jewellery 445.00 25,42,298 BS-4/19 7. Studded Jewellery 443.10 24,55,144 BS-4/19 8. Gold Jewellery 22k 1,120.20 34,58,547 BS-4/19 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....factory within the meaning of section 69B of the Act. The appellant has offered additional income of Rs. 68,28,637/- on account of excess stock of M/S. N.R. Jewellers which is being treated as part of unaccounted stock of Rs. 1,32,78,233/-. Therefore, the actual stock which is to be treated as unexplained excess stock u/s 69B of the Act is Rs. 1,32,78,233/-. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to treat the excess stock of Rs. 8,33,99,441/- found during the course of search from business & residential premises of the appellant as undisclosed investment u/s 69A of the Act and excess stock of Rs. 1,32,78,233/- found from business premises as unexplained excess stock u/s 69B of the Act. It is further clarified that the AO has made addition of Rs. 6,23,94,369/- being excess stock found at business premises u/s.69B of the Act out of which Rs. 4,91,16,136/- has now been held as deemed income u/s.69A of the Act and Remaining amount of Rs. 1,32,78,233/- has now been held as deemed income u/s.69B of the Act. It has been held by the various Courts that misquoting of a section not fatal to the case of revenue. Hon'ble ITAT, Indore in the case of Om Prakash Patidar, HUF, ITA No. 220/In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on offered by the assessee, then, certainly, the amount can be added towards the income of assessee and brought to tax in the hands of the assessee ". Accordingly, correct provisions have been applied here. 8. Aggrieved by the confirmation of additions though part relief is granted as per the aforesaid decision of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before us. 9. While assailing Ground No. 1 of the present appeal, at the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted a written synopsis, which for sake of clarity, extracted as under: Ground no. 1 Submission of assessee 1. Addition made on account of: Particulars Amount Rs. Alleged excess stock of jewellery at business premises u/s 69B 6,23,94,369/- Alleged unexplained investment in jewellery found at residence u/s 69A 3,63,68,311/- Total (A) 9,87,62,680/- Less: income offered in return on a/c of excess jeweller 68,28,637/- Net addition made 9,19,34,043/- i) Jewellery found at shop (page no. 59 of assessment order) Value of jewellery stock found Rs. 10,83,10,938/- Less : Value of stock as per books Rs. 4,59, 16,569/- Addition made u/s 69B Rs. 6,23,94,369/- ii) Jewellery found at residence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iii) Going by entries in above referred LPs, receipt of quantities referred to therein has to be treated to be correct. Seized documents establish that certain quantities of gold and silver items were received by assessee before search and as per the narration given in such LPs, bills thereof were not received till the date of search. It is equally established that such quantities have not been entered in books. iv) As per sec. 132(4A) and 292C, these quantities have to be taken to be received before search and so receipt of such quantities cannot be disputed. Have to be given credit for while calculating any discrepancy in stock. v) If impugned quantities are so considered, there is no further difference. 8. Observations of AO and CIT(A) All adverse observations of AO and CIT(A) are to the effect of objecting the receipt of respective quantities before the search, as claimed by assessee. Since receipt of impugned quantities cannot be disputed in view of provisions of sec. 132(4A) and sec. 292C, all adverse observations of both the authorities are irrelevant. 9. Impugned transactions accounted after search, routed through regular books,payment thereof recorded in regular ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee. Reliance on DCIT vs Rajendra Shanna in ITA no. 296/RPR/2014 dated 01.07.2019 (2019) 202 TTJ 6 (Raipur) (PN 362 to 372 of PB-2). iii) Shortage found at shop Considering the entries of reconciliation statement, there would be shortage of stock found at shop of assessee, which is another circumstantial evidence that stock of business was kept at residence also. iv) AO himself observed on page no. 17, para no. (v) (starting from 7th line from top), that if there was shortage in the business premises, then it could have been considered that items found in residence was of business concern of the assessee. 11. Neither sec. 69A nor sec. 69B attracted i) AO & CIT(A) have invoked sec. 69A & 69B for making/sustaining addition. ii) Sec. 69A - Pre-supposes that there is investment made by assessee. - Entire stock of jewellery considered as excess, whether found at residence or shop, covered by entries of purchase found recorded in BS, LP no. 19, 24 & 32. Bills not received and so no question of making any payment. - No evidence found during search or in assessment that against such entries, any unrecorded investment/payment was made by assessee. On the contrary, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sis of value only. 13. Retraction made by assessee Since surrender made during search was on mis-appreciation of facts and without considering the contents of books of accounts and seized documents, assessee retracted the same, letter dated 03.04.2019, at PN 83-84 of PB-I . Affidavit of assessee at PN 199- 202 of PB-I . 14. Comments on adverse observations of AO Separate sheet attached here with explains each of the adverse observation of AO. 15. Statement of assessee's son Rajat Agrawal Question was raised to him about the business cash at home and about personal cash, jewellery etc. (question no. 8 of statement, PN 123 of PB). Vide question no. 12 (PN 124 of PB-I), he was asked to whether anybody else's cash/jewellery was kept. Since the stock was own and not of anybody else, he thought that he was not required to state so. 16. CIT(A)'s findings i) Ld. CIT (A) observed at page 118, paragraph 3.1.13 that out of excess stock of Rs. 9,87,62,680/- worked out by the AO (at page no. 60, 2nd para of assessment order), items worth Rs. 20,85,006/- found from residence covered by CBDT Circular no. 1916, which was deleted by him vide para 3.1.12. Therefore, balan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence of the assessee pertains to the business, to justify the same the reasons explained are that the stock of jewellery was either received on approval or some of jewellery items which were received before the date of search, but could not have been accounted for till the date of search for the reason that purchase bills are yet to be received. It is further argued that the stock of business was also kept at residence of the assessee but such clarification by the assessee was not considered by the Ld. AO. Summary of such claim of the assessee is in form of a reconciliation statement is furnished at page no. 138 of the assessee's PB No.1, and accordingly, the actual excess stock conceded by the assessee was offered for taxation adding the same in return of income filed. For the sake of completeness of facts, Page no. 138 of the assessee's PB showing the reconciliation of stock is extracted as under: UTTAM KUMAR AGRAWAL AY 2019-20 DETAILS OF OVER STOCK Description Location Gold Jewellery (g) Silver Jewellery (g) Diamond Jewellery (g) Gold bullion (g) Stock as per book of account 1145.140 370651.000 1604.086 31.420 Good received but bill pending 195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms dated 16/11 and at LP No.32 of 1,62,130 grams consisting of two entries being 50,470 grams dated 4/11 and 1,11,660 grams dated 14/11 from M/s Saheli Jewellers. In total, the silver ornament quantity of 1,93,530 grams have been explained as either received on approval basis or goods received but purchase bills are yet to be received, therefore, the same have not been accounted for. 14. It was the submission that since impugned quantity of the gold and silver items/ ornaments which were duly recorded in the seized diary wherein it is also categorically mentioned by the assessee that the bill for such purchases are yet to be received (बिल आना बाकी / बिल नहीं आया हैं), this shows that the quantities available in stock are yet to be entered in the books of accounts, which is a practice in the trade of the assessee, where in goods are purchased on approval basis and physically brought in the business premises and once the transaction is finalized, the bills are received in due course and accounted for subsequently. Under such circumstances, the ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as received before the search and thus, such quantities cannot be disputed, accordingly, credit for such quantities must be given while verifying the physical stock of the assessee. It is submitted that if the impugned quantities are considered, there is no further difference other than the difference already offered to tax by the assessee. It is submitted that since the receipt of quantities cannot be disputed in view of provisions of section 132(4A) and 292C, no adverse inference can be drawn leading to any addition on this count. 17. Ld. AR in order to substantiate the arguments and contentions raised in the foregoing paras have further submitted that the pending entries of the physical stock found during the search have been duly routed through the regular books of accounts also the payment of such transactions are duly recorded in the regular books, therefore, such transactions which are misconstrued and branded as individual transactions of the assessee, are actually business transactions, therefore, such finding of the Ld. Revenue Authorities are without any reasonable basis or evidence, thus are nothing but factual misinterpretation. 18. As per Ld. AR, the stock lying a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been initiated by the Ld. ADIT(Inv.). Regarding no further enquiry by the concerned revenue authority even after clarification by the assessee disputing the excess stock determined by the department, Ld. AR placed his reliance on the decision of ITAT Raipur in ITA no. 296/RPR/2014 vide order dated 01.07.2019 in the case of DCIT vs Rajendra Sharma, wherein on this aspect tribunal has observed as under: 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that during search, the assessee was not present at the factory premises, where stock verification was carried out and the inventory of stock of raw material was prepared in the presence of one employee of the assessee, who has signed the inventory. We find that the AO has observed that assessee's relative Shri Manish Sharma was also present in the factory premises, which the assessee has disputed before us; that the Id. Counsel contended that Shri Manish Sharma visited the factory subsequent to completion of stock-taking process; that he was shown the inventory which was already prepared before his arrival at the factory and that he was asked to state whether he agreed with the invento....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that due to threat of fire, there was no electricity connection in the godown where materials were stored. All these claims of assessee have remained uncontroverted. We are of the considered opinion that in absence of any further enquiry conducted by the search team and without verifying the veracity of various claims of the assessee made through the affidavit of the employee, no adverse view could have been taken in the case of the assessee even keeping in mind the circumstance that stock inventory was signed by the employee. In our considered view, in such peculiar facts, the stock inventory prepared cannot aspire confidence and no inference can be drawn only on the basis of such of inventory as it renders it unreliable. It is not the case that the stock inventory was brought under dispute by the assessee after a long gap or that the assessee did not produce the concerned employee before the authorities when called. It is not the case of Revenue that during search or during the assessment proceedings, any material evidence establishing unrecorded purchases or sales was found or brought on record. In other words, no corroborative material has been brought on record. This is one c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so the contention that no evidence for any unrecorded investment or payment made by the assessee was found by the investigating team. Since all the payments pertaining to the entries in the seized documents were duly settled by the assessee from the regular books of accounts may be after the search therefore, the genuineness of such transaction cannot be doubted. According to Ld. AR, the provisions of section 69A invoked in the present case fails, because the initial burden to prove that investment was made by the assessee could not be substantiated by the Ld. AO by way of bringing on record any cogent evidence to prove so. Ld. AO, therefore, grossly failed in discharging the burden cast upon him. Similar argument has been offered by the Ld. AR w.r.t. provisions of section 69B, where the investment made by the assessee or investment made in excess of amount recorded in the books, could not be proved by the revenue. On this aspect, Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments: ▪CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (2013) 352 ITR 629 (Del.) 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessed made a statement in a civil court that the total investment in the property was Rs. 13 crores and odd, it would not be sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the said figure represents the actual investment. There has to be something more than that. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal's finding that the Revenue has failed to place on record any material to show how the total investment of the assessed was determined at Rs. 13 crores cannot be said to be perverse for having taken into consideration some irrelevant factors or that its decision is such that no reasonable person could have come to the same conclusion. In our opinion, while deleting the addition, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the relevant factors, extracted hereinabove. The issue raised by the Revenue essentially pertains to a question of fact and does not involve the application of any legal principles to the facts established by evidence. 12. Consequently, in our view, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. We accordingly decline to entertain the appeal. Dismissed. ▪ Ushakant N. Patel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The agreement clearly stipulates an amount of Rs. 49,91,842 as the value of shop room No. 115. The fact that the assessee had paid advance has also been mentioned in the agreement dated May 12, 1997. There is no dispute to that effect. Further, it is also clear that the assessee had declared payment of Rs. 12,50,000 at the time of the agreement under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme. As held by the apex court in K. P. Var-ghese's case, the burden of proof is on the respondent to show that the assessee had actually paid more than what was actually disclosed. This burden has been discharged by the Revenue. The burden can be discharged by the Revenue by establishing the facts and circumstances from which reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee had not correctly declared or disclosed the consideration received by him and there is understatement or concealment of consideration. On the facts we are in full agreement with the authorities below. In such circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this appeal. The same would stand dismissed. I. A. No. 1657 of 2005 is also dismissed. 22. Backed by aforesaid submissions, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income-tax Act is a lawful invasion on the privacy, life and property of a citizen which may affect him/her mentally also, besides causing several other inconveniences, hardships, embarrassment and harassment. There is every likelihood of a statement tendered to or recorded by the searching officers on the search day being incoherent or at variance with subsequent statements tendered to or recorded in any further or collateral proceedings. But to make addition to the returned income or to put such person to sufferance or to adverse consequences on such statement is not justified in law. By this we are not saying or laying down that every statement recorded on the search day has to be ignored as of no consequence or that no reliance or credence should be placed on such search day statement. All that we wish to say but with little emphasis, is that all that is stated by any deponent on the search day should not be taken as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Such statements indubitably have evidentiary value and credibility in law, but the same should be viewed with great caution particularly when the same is denied, varied or retracted or established by the defend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy, who is not exposed to the vagaries of this now cruel world and she was, therefore, wholly dependent on her husband in relation to the entire transaction of the said shop. It is also evident from the deposition of the authorised officer in the prosecution case launched against the assessee and her husband in the Criminal Court to which our attention was drawn and which is found in the assessee's paper-book that the assessee was unwell during the course of search operations on 26-6-1981 when her husband was out of Ahmedabad and that a Doctor was summoned for her treatment on that day. In such circumstances, the statement of the assessee will surely be incoherent and will be at variance with that of her husband in further/collateral proceedings. After the search, perhaps the assessee was informed by her husband about the true facts and state of affairs in relation to the transaction of the said shop and it is at that later stage, the assessee came forward and gave a different but perhaps true statement requiring credence. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was not justified in drawing adverse inference against the assessee or her husband oblivious of such circumstances enumerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess stock found was on account of any bogus/ unexplained investment by the assessee. On the contrary, when the proceedings u/s 133(6) have been initiated by the Ld. AO all the parties put to notice have come forward and responded affirmative in the favour of the assessee. Under such facts and circumstances, the addition made under 69A & 69B are bad in law, illegal, unjustified without any basis thus, are liable to be deleted and the orders of the revenue authorities deserves su to be quashed. 25. Per contra, Ld. CIT DR on behalf of the revenue strongly placed his reliance on the order of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT DR drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein it is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that on perusal of the bills furnished by the appellant obtained after the search the appellant had never purchased any goods during FY 2012-13 to 2017-18 from five concern parties. The appellant during the year under consideration have made huge purchases of Rs.7.98 Crores from the said five concerns between the period 03.11.2018 to 16.11.2018 is against total purchase of appellant during the entire year to the tune of Rs. 9.94 Crores i.e., 72.40% of the total purchase was made during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extracted here in above). The main reason for difference in physical and stock as per books as explained by the assessee was that the quantity of goods received on approval but not entered in the books and the quantities received but bills are pending or the bills are yet to be received from the supplier therefore, entries of such stock was pending on the date of search. The quantities shown in the seized documents have been further fortified by the assessee by way of producing the bills for same quantities from the suppliers, assessee also completed his books of accounts and have reconciled the quantities and there after the excess stock worked out was offered as income in the returned filed by the assessee for Rs.68,28,637/-. Such working of quantities of stock under the head gold jewellery, silver jewellery, diamond jewellery and gold bullion prepared and furnished by the assessee was not disputed by the department but have made the addition of entire excess stock without considering the entries of quantities in the seized documents with their conviction on the ground that (i) as per seized documents which were written by the assessee in his hand writing regarding various transa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble device and clearly and after thoughts and managed, (v) It was also contended by the revenue that assessee himself during the statement recorded on oath have admitted that excess stock have found during the course of search have been acquired out of unaccounted income of past few years. 28. On perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the allegations of the department against the assessee are all based on presumptions and probabilities but are unsubstantiated in terms of any corroborative evidence that the transactions recorded in the seized documents showing specific quantities a/w categorical mentioned about the status of pending bills are not genuine transactions. The assessee had matched the quantities by furnishing the bills received from the respective suppliers whose name are reflecting in the seized documents, such quantities have never been disputed by the department they only placed their reliance on probabilities and surmises whereas the physical documentary evidence are indicating on the contrary. The statement of the assessee recorded during the search cannot be the sole basis for addition unless the same is duly supported by the evidenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the basis of duly verified primary evidence and Tribunal had confirmed order of CIT(A), in view of retraction of admission by the assessee, deletion of addition was held to be justified by the Hon'ble High Court. Ld. CIT(A) has further relied on the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chawla Brothers (P) Ltd., reported in [2011] 43 SOT 651 (Mum), wherein it is held that the declaration in survey u/s. 133A of the Act is subject to explanation and reconciliation by the assessee and if explained, it has to be considered. 16. On a thoughtful analysis of the factual matrix of the present case, apparently the assessee has provided its books of accounts maintained on computer, however, supporting documents and vouchers were not produced before the survey team during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the Act but all the books of accounts, bills and vouchers with supporting evidences were submitted by the assessee before the AO during the assessment proceedings but the same were summarily rejected by the ld. AO stating that it seems that assessee has manipulated the books of accounts and other documents, hence, the same cannot be relied upon. Such an observ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....smissed. 29. In view of aforesaid decision, the revenue authorities are under abounded obligation by virtue of CBDT's circular to focus on gathering evidence during Search/Survey and to strictly avoid obtaining admission of undisclosed income under coercion/undue influence. Such instructions from CBDT shows that corroborative evidence should be given preference over the oral statements of assessee or preferably the statement should be correlated with the material evidence to reach at a true and correct conclusion. In the present case all the evidence may be after the search but are substantiated and could not be dislodged by the revenue. Even when the proceedings u/s 133(6) have been initiated all the concern parties have submitted their response and confirmed the transactions recorded in the seized documents. Such facts and circumstantial evidence favours the submissions of the assessee, at the same time the presumptive thoughts of the revenue authorities dehors any cogent support that the transactions in the seized documents which on the contrary were supported by the assessee by submitting evidence in the form of bills of the supplier parties considering the same as just a conc....