TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 870
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) on 28/12/2022, wherein the Ld. A.O. disallowed Rs. 17,50,000/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act paid by the Assessee company to its Director Smt. Sonia Singla. Aggrieved by the order dated 28/12/2022, Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 24/02/2025, dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. 3. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. The Assessee has not pressed Ground No. 2 to 4, accordingly Ground No. 2 to 4 are dismissed as not pressed. 4. The Ld. Assessee's Representative arguing on Ground No. 5 submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in both law and facts in upholding t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Apart from the same, in an identical case, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of L. S. Tool Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.5643/Del/2024 held as under:- "26. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. In regard to first issue which is common to both the years before us, we observe that Priti Singla is a Director in the assessee company and received salary from AY 2017-18 onwards as under :- S No. F.Y Salary received Commission received From concerned entity 1 2021-22 28,00,000 ------- LSL Tools Pvt. Ltd. 2 2020-21 44,10,000 ------- LSL Tools Pvt. Ltd. 3 2019-20 61,10,000 ------- LSL Tools Pvt. Ltd. 4 2018-19 26,00,000 -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p of the proceedings u/s 148A cannot be said to be irrelevant but where law requires principles of consistency to be maintained in tax matters then such conclusions drawn in quasi judicial proceedings after due application of mind, in previous years, then same cannot be disturbed on the basis of any statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, being uncorroborated by any substantive evidences. At the same time we find that retracting her statement Priti Singla she has filed an affidavit subsequently on 23.11.2022 that she is a Director, is a graduate in commerce, she is graduate in computer application and was involved in various activities of the company including personnel management, administrative matters, assistance to other directors in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not be made only on the basis of admissions made by the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative material. The relevant paragraph no. 26 of the said decision has been reproduced herein below: - 26. In view of what has been stated hereinabove we are of the view that this explanation seems to be more convincing, has not been considered by the authorities below and additions were made and/or confirmed merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Despite the fact that the said statement was later on retracted no evidence has been led by the Revenue authority. We are, therefore, of the view that merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not have been subjected to such additions unless and u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n its sweep statements recorded during search and seizure operations. However, the statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the Explanation to section 132(4) of the Act. However, such statements on a stand alone basis without reference to any other material discovered during search and seizure operations would not empower the Assessing Officer to make a block assessment merely because any admission was made by the assessee during search operation. [Emphasis supplied] 23. In our opinion, the Act does not contem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....additions which were made. This becomes further apparent from a reading of the following observations which appear in para 37 of the order impugned herein: "37. We further find from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that there was no surrender of income for the impugned assessment year and the surrender was only for the assessment year 2008-09 which too was retracted within two months. He has also observed that the statement was non descriptive and vague and subject to cross checking of fact to be explained after access to books of accounts. We, therefore, find merit in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the I.T. Act is not based on any incriminating material and ....