TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appearing for the respondent. 2. This Tax Appeal is preferred by the appellant-assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Ahmedabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 2203/Ahd/1996 for Assessment Year 1992-93 3. This Tax Appeal was admitted by order dated 17.09.2009 for consideration of following substantial questions of law :- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Admit. Issue notice of admission to the respondent on the following substantial questions of law. "(i) Whether, in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the residential premises of the partners on 28/29.7.1992. During the course of search operation, statement of Shri Pradyman M. Patel was recorded on 29.7.1992 u/s.132(4) wherein Shri Patel had disclosed Rs.1,50,000 as unaccounted income for the F.Y. 1991-92. It was admitted by him that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was received by way of "Excess Sales value by way of suppression of trading receipts in the matter of under invoicing". He had further admitted that the unaccounted income of the firm is lying with his trustworthy persons as his deposits. While filing the return, the assessee has not disclosed this amount of Rs.1,50,000 in the return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after considering the reply of the assessee, made th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on making such statement. In the case of Maganbhai Becharbhai Patel & Co. v. ITO in ITA 1346/Ahd/1992 dated 7.9.1994, it was held that when there is a retraction, the matter has to be decided on the basis of clear independent, cogent and reliable evidence and material to be brought on record. IN the present case, this exercise has not been done by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, looking to the totality of facts, in my opinion, the addition is not sustainable. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to delete the same." 14. The learned DR submitted before us that the assessee has made a disclosure of Rs.1,50,000 and the statement was recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act. In his statement, Mr. Pradyman M.Patel, has disclosed Rs.1,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the authoritative pronouncements relied upon by both the sides. It is true any disclosure made u/s 132(4) during the survey proceedings is admissible evidence against the person making the disclosure. However, a presumption of rebuttal is also attached with such disclosure and, if any, person able to demonstrate with the help of material, that such admission was either mistaken or untrue, then solely on the basis of such admission, addition is not required to be made. The Assessing Officer should take the aid of some corroborative material. In the present case, no doubt, disclosure was made but it was retracted within two days and alleged entries appearing in Annexure 13 have duly been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to interfere in the finding of We do not see any good reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) and uphold the same." Department preferred appeal before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal by observing as under: "The CIT (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal both have found that after retracting from earlier statement, no efforts were made to bring on record any material to justify this addition. Considering the concurrent findings of CIT(Appeals) and the tribunal, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. We see no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law does arise. The appeal stands dismissed" From the above, we find that in the case of ....