TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sake of convenience. 2. The only common ground raised in both the cases is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the income disclosed in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. The facts of the case are that the action under s. 132(1) was carried out by the IT authorities at the premises of the assessees' father late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma on 26th March, 1993. During the course of such action, the authorised officer recorded joint statement of both the assessees and their father under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. In their joint statement, late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma (father) disclosed income of Rs. 5 lakhs in his hands, Shri Anil Kumar (son) disclosed income of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and Shri Anoop Kumar (son) disclos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was further argued that search under s. 132 was carried out at the premises of his late father. No search was carried out at the premises of both the assessees. It was submitted that during the course of search, their late father developed chest pain and was feeling restless. Despite repeated requests made to the authorised officer, not to persist with the recording of statement, the authorised officer went ahead and somehow recorded the statement and obtained joint signatures of both the assessees and their father had signed the statements in order to save themselves from harassment. As their late father was not feeling well, ultimately such harassment also resulted in the death of their father. Such statements were duly retracted by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made on account of unexplained cash found at the time of search. Considering the fact that the assessee had shown income of Rs. 30,000, he allowed credit for the same against the total addition and household expenses and addition of Rs. 2,20,600 was upheld. However, he deleted the addition made by the AO by relying on the statement made under s. 132(4) of the IT Act. While the assessee has accepted the various orders of learned CIT(A) in sustaining various additions, the Revenue is aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on income disclosed at the time of search. 5. The learned Departmental Representative heavily relied on the orders of the AO. He brought my attention to pp. 1 to 4 of assessee's p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There being no material to justify such disclosure, the assessees had rightly retracted from the same. No addition can be made merely by relying on the statements recorded under s. 132(4). He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (2000) 163 CTR (AP) 403 : (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP), where the Hon'ble High Court has held that confessional statement without there being any documentary proof cannot be used in evidence against the person, who made such statement. He further relied on the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi 'C' Bench, in the case of R.P. Locks vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 67 TTJ (Del) 588, where it was held that the statement recorded under s. 132(4) surren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the course of recording of such statement, the assessee can also disclose/surrender income which had not been disclosed in the returns of income filed earlier. Clause 2 of Expln. 5 of s. 271(1)(c) confers certain benefits on the person who had made a statement under sub-s. (4) to s. 132 surrendering income which had not been disclosed in the return of income in the form of immunity from penalty under s. 271(1)(c) subject to his disclosing the manner in which such income was derived and the payment of tax and interest in respect of such income. Thus, the income surrendered during the course of recording of statement under s. 132(4) is also for the benefit of the assessee. Now the question arises as to whether the income surrendered during ....