D.C,I,T.CC - XIII , Kol., Kolkata V. Sri Vivekanand Verma., Howrah

ITA 1784/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83016 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DAS
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

, A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , . . . . ! ! ! ! /AND ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' , ) [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] !$ / I.T.A NO.1784/KOL/2012 #% &'/ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. SHRI VIVEK ANAND VERMA CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA. (PAN:ABSPV3211B) ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 30.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.08.2014 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. K. DAS, JCIT, SR. DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI RAJEEVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 265/CC-XIII/CIT(A)C-II/11-12 DATED 14.09.2012. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY JCIT(OSD), C.C-XIII, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 2 8.12.2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IN VIEW OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY A SSESSEE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CR. DURING SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS PER DISC LOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS WHICH ARE AGAINST TH E REVENUE, AND NOT CONSIDERING THE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON SHYAM STEEL & POWER GROUP OF CASES ON 26.03.2010 U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. A CONSEQUENTIAL SEARCH WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.504011039472 MAINTAINED WITH ING VAISHYA BANK LTD., H. B. SARANI BRANCH, KO LKATA AND ACCOUNT NO. 301601010025105 MAINTAINED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA , INDIAN EXCHANGE PLACE BUILDING, KOLKATA IN THE NAME OF MANOMAY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LT D. AND OMNI TREXIM PVT. LTD. RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA W AS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS IN THESE 2 ITA NO.1784/K/2012 SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA AY 2010-11 COMPANIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LE TTER DATED 06.05.2010 BEFORE DDIT, INVESTIGATION UNIT 1(4), KOLKATA WHEREBY HE DISCLOS ED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1 CR. ACCORDINGLY, AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. AY 2010-11, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THIS RS. 1 CR. AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2011. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY A SUM OF RS. 1 CR. SURRENDERED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH, AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, BE NOT ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSEE RE PLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 02.09.2011 WHEREIN IT WAS CLAIMED THAT BANK A/C. NO. 504011039472 MAIN TAINED WITH ING VAISHYA BANK LTD., H. B. SARANI BRANCH, KOLKATA WAS IN THE NAME OF MANOMO Y DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS A REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID COMPANY. BEFORE THE AO, ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DIS CLOSURE MADE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND IT WAS MADE UNDER COERCION AND THREAT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. THAT IS WHY, ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THER E IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THIS DISCLOSURE AS THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE OR DIRECT EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1 CR. THERE IS NO DEPOSIT IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO CASH OR PAPER FOUND RELATING TO WHICH THIS INCOME IS TO BE DECLARED. B UT THE AO ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 1 CR. TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DIS CLOSURE LETTER DATED 06.05.210 FILED BEFORE DDIT, INVESTIGATION, UNIT 1(4), KOLKATA. AGGRIEVED , ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA 5 OF HIS APPELLA TE ORDER AS UNDER: 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS AP PARENT THAT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHYAM STEEL & POWER LTD. GROUP ON 26.03.2010. CONSEQUENTLY THE SEARCH WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON 06.05 .2010 IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD IN THE NAME OF M/S. MANOMAY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. OMNI TREXIM PVT. LTD. THE APPELLANT WAS ONE OF THE DIRECTORS IN THE ABOVE MEN TIONED COMPANIES, HOWEVER, NO SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN HIS CASE. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A LETTER DAT ED 06.05.2010 BEFORE THE DDIT (INV), UNIT- 1(4), KOLKATA HAVING SUBJECT DISCLOSURE OF I NCOME U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE SAID LETTER, IT WAS STATED BY TH E APPELLANT THAT HE IS ASSOCIATED WITH M/S. MANOMAY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. OMNI T REXIM PVT. LTD. AS DIRECTOR. HE HAD EARNED COMMISSION INCOME ON VARIOUS FINANCIAL T RANSACTIONS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, HE MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1 CRORE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 010-11. IN THE SAID LETTER APPELLANT ALSO STATED THAT ON THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE NAMED COMPANIES, PROHIBITORY ORDER U/S. 132(3) HAS BEEN PLACED AND THE BALANCE LYING W ITH THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS MAY BE USED FOR PAYMENT OF TAX ON HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME. H OWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, HE DI D NOT DISCLOSE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1 CRORE AS ADMITTED N THE LETTER DATED 06.0 5.2010. THEREFORE, IN THE COURSE OF 3 ITA NO.1784/K/2012 SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA AY 2010-11 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE DISCLOSURE MADE U/S. 132(4) IN THE COMPUTATION OF I NCOME SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO SHOW CAUSE D TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY UNACCOUNTED INCOME, ALREADY DISCLOSED BY HIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 CR SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELLANT FILED E XPLANATION VIDE LETTER DATED 02.09.2011 AND RETRACTED THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1 CR ORE MADE BY HIM VDE LETTER DATED 06.05.2010. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A0 THAT THE RE WAS NO BASIS OF SAID DSCLOSURE AND THAT HE HAD FILED THE DISCLOSURE LETTER UNDER C OERCION AND PRESSURE. THAT, NO SEARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED IN HIS CASE AND THERE IS NO MA TERIAL ON RECORD WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT HE HAD EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN HIS CASE. IT WAS ALSO CONTE NDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANIES WHICH WERE PUT UNDER PROH BITORY ORDERS ARE THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANY AND DULY D SCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO RETRACTING THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS N OT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1 CRORE TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELL ANT FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAD MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1 CRORE AND HE FALED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY HIM UNDER COERCION. THAT, HE DID NOT COMPLAIN TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES AND THE RETRACTION WAS NOT MADE MMEDIA TELY AFTER THE SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION WAS OVER. IT IS ALSO HELD BY THE AO THAT BY MAKING VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE APPELLANT INDUCED THE SEARC H PARTY NOT TO PROCEED WITH COLLECTON OF OTHER EVIDENCE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERAT ON OF THE FACTS AND IN LAW, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTFIED MAKING ADDITI ON OF RS. 1. CRORE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT PETITION DATED 06.05.2010 FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT RETRA CTING THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS OF SUCH DISCLOSU RE AND SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED OR CORROBORATED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR INCRMINATING DOCUM ENTS FOUND BY THE SEARCH PARTY. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DENIED THE FACTS ME NTONED ABOVE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO WHERE, IT IS MENTIONED THAT TH E CLAIM OF APPELLANT IS NOT CORRECT AND THAT EVIDENCES WERE FOUND IN THE CASE OF APPELL ANT SUPPORTING THE DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1 CRORE AS UNDISCLOSED NCOME EARNED ON ACCOUNT OF CO MMISSION. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOT EVEN A SNGLE PIECE OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE/D OCUMENT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR WHICH MAY SUPPORT AND CORROBORATE THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE STATEMENT OF AO THAT BY MAKING DISCLOSURE OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME, THE APPELLANT INDUCED THE SEARCH PARTY NOT TO PROCEED WITH COLLEC TION OF EVIDENCES. IN FACT, IT IS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST DUTY OF THE SEARCH PARTY TO GATH ER THE EVIDENCES SUGGESTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME/INVESTMENT OF AN ASSESSEE. THE S EARCH PARTY CANNOT STOP ITS PROCEEDING OF COLLECTING EVIDENCES IF THE DISCLOSUR E IS MADE BY AN ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE SEARCH PARTY NOR THE AO H AS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF RS. 1 CRORE. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT FILE D COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF M/S. MANOMAY DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. AND M/S . OMNI TREXIM PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2010-11 DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED BY THE SAME AO WHO PASSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT. IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE COMPANIES, THE B ANK BALANCES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D NO ADDITION TO THEIR INCOME WAS MADE. IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE COMP ANY LTD. VS, STATE OF KERALA, 91 ITR 18 (SC), T IS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T THAT AN ADMISSION IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVNDRA KUMAR JAIN, 12 TAXMANN.COM 257, THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF JHARKHAND HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEME NT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) IF THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED LATER AND SURRENDER WAS NOT CORR OBORATED BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY, N THE CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOK S VS. CIT, 174 TAXMANN 466, THE HONBLE HGH COURT OF GUJARAT HAS HELD THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT MADE U/S. 132(4), THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ADDITION UNLESS AND UNTIL SOME 4 ITA NO.1784/K/2012 SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA AY 2010-11 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADDITION. FURTHER, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SPIRIT AS LAID DOWN BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR DATED 10.03.2003 WHICH WAS ALSO REFERRED B Y THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF M. NARAYANAN & BROS. VS. ACIT , 13 TAXMANN.COM 49, AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO STANDS SUPPORTED BY THE CIRCULAR DATED 10.03.2003 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, WH ICH HAS GIVEN CATEGORICAL DIRECTIONS TO THE OFFICERS, WHO ARE ENTRUSTED WITH THE JOB OF ASSESSMENT THAT UNDUE EMPHASIS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED ON THE STATEMENTS REC ORDED. IN FACT, IT HAD GIVEN A MANDATE NOT TO OBTAIN CONFESSION AS TO THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME. 5.1 THE SIMILAR VIEW WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN 300 ITR 157 WHE REIN IT HAS REFERRED TO THE SAID CIRCUIAR DATED 10.03.2003 ISSUED BY THE CBDT. IN T S ORDER DATED 04.07.2007, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS QUOTED FROM THE SAID CRCULA R WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER WHAT IS MORE RELEVANT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS THA T THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHTLY INVITED T O THE CIRCULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 10, 2003, WTH RE GARD TO THE CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND S EIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE SAID CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 10, 2003, READS AS FO LLOWS : INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD WHE RE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFESS THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SUR VEY OPERATIONS. SUCH CONFESSIONS, IF NOT BASED UPON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, A RE LATER RETRACTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES WHILE FILING RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, CONFESSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS DO NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE. IT IS, THEREFORE, ADVISED THAT THERE SHOULD BE FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION ON COL LECTION OF EVIDENCE OF INCOME WHICH LEADS TO INFORMATION ON WHAT HAS NOT B EEN DISCLOSED OR IS NOT LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX DE PARTMENT. SIMILARLY, WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTA IN CONFESSON AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ANY ACTION ON THE CONTRARY SHALL BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD RELY UPON THE EVIDENCES/MATERIAL GA THERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATIONS OR THEREAFTER WH ILE FRAMING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL REPRESENTING HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND IN SEARCH. THE AO HAS ALSO BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED B Y THE APPELLANT. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT, WHICH WAS RETRACTED LATER O N, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR ASSET REPRESENTING UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO IS NEITHER SUSTAINABLE IN LAW NOR ON FACTS. THEREFORE, HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 CRORE. THE GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED. 5 ITA NO.1784/K/2012 SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA AY 2010-11 AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THIS DISC LOSURE AND THEREAFTER ADDITION MADE BY AO TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE OR DIRECT EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1 C R. THERE IS NO DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO CASH OR INCRIMINATING PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE OR THERE IS NO UNACCOUNTED DEPOSITS FOUND IN THE ABOVE-STATED TWO BANK ACCOUNTS RELATING TO WHICH THIS INCOME IS TO BE DECLARED. B UT THE AO ADDED THE SUM OF RS. 1 CR. TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DIS CLOSURE LETTER DATED 06.05.210 FILED BEFORE DDIT, INVESTIGATION, UNIT 1(4), KOLKATA. AS THERE I S NO BASIS FOR MAKING THIS ADDITION, CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE SUBMI SSIONS AND RELYING ON VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01.08.2014 SD/- SD/- , . . . . , ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' ' #!' , (P. K. BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST AUGUST, 2014 -. #/0 #1 JD.(SR.P.S.) 2 +##3 43&5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XIII, KOLKATA. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT SHRI VIVEKANAND VERMA, 62/B/P, J. N. M UKHERJEE ROAD, HOWRAH-711 107. 3 . # ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. # / CIT KOLKATA 3:#; +# / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,3 +#/ TRUE COPY,