TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loan and interest? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-27, Kolkata without considering the merit of the case? iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering the merit of the case? iv. Whether the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified and made a perverse finding in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by ignoring the corroborative impounded material and accepting the retractions made by the assessee without any reasonable explanation and evidence in support of his retraction claims?" 3. At the outset, we have asked the learned advocate appearing for the appellant to satisfy us as to whether the substantial questions of law as proposed by the appellant are at all substantial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta vide order under Section 127 of the said Act. 11. Being the year of survey, the case was selected under compulsory scrutiny as per action plan for selection of cases under scrutiny. The Assessing Officer also referred to various papers impounded in the course of survey in the hands of respondent/assessee and his group company. Such documents were CUML/1 to CUMS/7, Hard Disc CUMS.HD.1 and SKB/1. The papers under identification Mark CUML were impounded from Citizen Umbrella Manufacturers Ltd. and SKB from assessee. Thereafter, statutory notices under Section 143(2) of the said Act dated 28th June, 2021 and under Section 142(1) of the said Act, 1961 dated 13th January, 2022 along with requisition/questioners were issued to the respondent/assessee. 12. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment had relied upon the documents seized form Sanwaria and Kasera and the documents under identification no. CUML 1 and 2 impounded from the respondent/assessee. 13. The Assessing Officer in Para-5.2.2 had relied on the explanation of the respondent/assessee to the effect that the respondent/assessee in his statement recorded in the course of survey under Section 133A of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellate Tribunal has also recorded a survey was conducted on the respondent/assessee and one M/s Citizen Umbrella Mfg. Ltd. During this, the statement of the respondent/assessee was recorded under Section 131 of the said Act. What is important to note here that the Appellate Tribunal has categorically recorded that the search was conducted on a date that falls prior to start of assessment year 2020-2021 and even the start of the financial year relevant to assessment year 2020-2021. The Tribunal has also categorically recorded that the material found during the course the of said search on Kasera and Sanwaria, has nothing to do with the assessment of income in the assessment of the respondent/assessee as the same was done prior to with the assessment year 2020-2021 and even the start of the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2020-2021. We also find from the order of the Appellate Tribunal that the Tribunal has also recorded that the respondent/assessee retracted his statement given during the course of survey under Section 133A of the said Act immediately on 24th February, 2020 which was within five days of the date of survey by filing an affidavit on the ground tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s well settled. 25. In the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 65 the Supreme Court held that "8. ... the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear in making the assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. ..." 26. In the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1238 the Supreme Court held: "42. We are aware that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a fact finding Tribunal and if it arrives at its own conclusions of fact after due consideration of the evidence before it this Court will not interfere. It is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its findings in a manner whic....