Shri Sudarshan P.Amin, Anand V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 2342/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 234220514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Retraction
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT - JM AND SHRI T R MEENA - AM ITA NO.2342/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2000-01) SHRI SUDARSHAN P AMIN, NEESTHA, VINUKAKA MARG, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR, ANAND V/S THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA PAN: ACGDA 9629 P [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY :- MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR REVENUE BY:- SHRI B K S PANDYA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING:- 12-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 23-03-2012 O R D E R PER T R MEENA (AM) :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDAB AD DATED 20- 01-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE ONLY EFFEC TIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN CON FIRMATION THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE. 2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/ S 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE SWISS G LASS COAT GROUP OF CASES AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 1 9-01-2006. ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 13-03-2001 DECLARING A N INCOME OF 2 2 RS.5,36,367/-. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153 A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 25-07-2006 DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS.5,36,367/-. THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER AND RESIDENT OF NISTHA BU NGLOW WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN JULY 1999. TH E AO NOTED THAT IN COURSE OF SEARCH, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) ON 19/01/2006, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT OVER AND ABO VE THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNGLOW, HE HAD INVESTED AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN RENOVATION O F THE BUNGLOW AND IN ITS FURNITURE AND VARIOUS FIXTURES. BY ASSES SEE'S OWN ADMISSION THIS AMOUNT WAS INVESTED OUT OF HIS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE SAME WILL BE DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN THAT WILL BE FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE U/S. 153A. 3 THE AO HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SAME ADMISSION WAS REITERATED TWO MONTHS LATER BY THE ASSESSEE IN COUR SE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DDIT INVESTIGATION VI DE HIS STATEMENT DATED A 28/03/2006 VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTIO N NO. 25 . BOTH THE TIMES THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS PRESENT AND THESE STATEMENTS WERE ENDORSED BY HIM A S WELL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO STATED THAT THE REQUIRED AMOUNT O F TAX WILL BE PAID BY HIM BY 31/03/2006. 4 THE AO OBSERVED THAT HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONAL INCOM E WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153A. VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 31/08/2007, 12/11/2007 AND HEAR INGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MA DE IN RENOVATION FURNITURE AND FIXTURE OF NISTHA BUNGLOW AND TO GIVE REASONS WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS DISCLOSED BY HIM SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMEN T. A COPY OF 3 3 VIDEO RECORDING OF NISTHA BUNGLOW MADE BY THE SEARC H PARTY WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON A CD . 5 IN HIS REPLY FILED ON 24/09/2006, THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD DISCLOSED RS.50 LAKHS AT THE TIME O F SEARCH, NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SEIZED BY THE SEARC H PARTY TO SUPPORT THIS DISCLOSURE. HENCE, ACCORDING TO HIM TH E ACTUAL DISCLOSURE WAS ONLY RS.5 LAKHS INSTEAD OF RS.50 LAK HS. FURTHER, HE ALSO STATED THAT THE COMPLETE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON AND FURNITURE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IN HIS SUBSEQU ENT REPLIES FILED ON 15/10/2007, 22/11/2007, 08/12/2007 AND 13/ 12/2007, THE ASSESSEE REITERATED AND STATED THAT APART FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE THAT WAS COMPLETED IN JULY, 1999 RS.14,65 ,850/- HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THE FURNITURE THAT HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE SOURCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS STATED T O BE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN M/ S. CHEMFILT, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. 6 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE, THE AO CONCLUDED AS UNDER:- THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NOT MAD E ANY UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE, FIXTURE AND/ RENOVATION OF NISTHA BUNGLOW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- - THE DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL UNDER OATH. THE SAME WAS ENDORSED BY THE CA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME ADMISSION WAS REITERATED BY THE ASSESSEE TWO MONTHS LATER WHEREIN HE ONCE AGAIN PROMISED TO PAY TAX ON RS.50 LAKHS DISCLOSED. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE TAKES TH E PLEA THAT HE WAS UNDUE PRESSURE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SITUATION TWO MONTHS LATER. FURTHER, NO RETRACTION OF THE ABOVE 4 4 ADMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NEXT 19 MONTHS. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE DISC LOSURE IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT HE FILED A RE TRACTION DATED 24/09/2007. - THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT SPEND ON FURNITURE ETC. WAS REFLECTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET. HOWEVER, AS PER ASSESSEE'S OWN ADMISSION DATED 22/11/2007, HE IS NOT MAINTAINI NG ANY PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS RETURNS. - THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FU RNITURE AS WITHDRAWAL FROM M/S. CHEMFILT. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPOR TANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT DUE TO SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. CHEMFILT THE SAME HAVE BEEN REJECT ED U/S. 145 OF THE I.T. ACT. - THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF BY SAYING I N ONE PLACE THAT THERE IS NO UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN FURNITUR E, FIXTURE AND RENOVATION; AND ON THE OTHER HAND ACCEPTING UNACCOU NTED INVESTMENT OF RS.5 LAKHS UNDER THE SAME HEAD VIDE H IS LETTER DATED 24/09/2007. - WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED IN DETAIL 'THE V ARIOUS FURNITURE AND FIXTURES, NOTHING WRT THE RENOVATION CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO POI NT OUT AT THIS JUNCTURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED TO CARRYING OUT RENOVATION AT THE BUNGLOW, ON WHICH HE HAD MADE THE DISCLOSURE. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM IS REJE CTED. IT IS THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN FURNITURE, FIXTURE AND RENOVATION OF NISTHA BUNGLOW. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.50,00, 000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D INVESTMENT. 7 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UND ER RULE 46A. 5 5 HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 2.0 THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES U NDER RULE-46A. BUT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMS TANCES AS WHY THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. MOREOVER, THE BILLS PRODUCED NOW WERE ALSO ALLEGED TO BE HELD BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREF ORE, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. HENCE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCIN G THESE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE CONTEN TIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE HEREBY REJECTED AND APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. 3.0 THE LEARNED COUNSEL CONTENDED REGARDING FIRST G ROUND OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- THE PREMISES OF APPELLANT WERE SEARCHED U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, ON 19/01/2006, WHICH RESULTED IN ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S.153A ON 13/06/2006. THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE THERETO FILED RETURN ON 25/07/2006 DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS.5,36,367/-. O RIGINALLY DECLARED INCOME TAX RETURN OF RS.5,36,367/- WHICH WAS FILED ON 13.03.2001. ON THE BASIS OF DECLARATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON 1 9/01/2006 VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 29 RECONFIRMING THE SAME ON 28/03/2006 VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 25, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AD DED RS.50 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APP ELLANT HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED FROM THE DECLARATION AND STA TED THAT, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE HE IS DECLARING RS.5 LACS. HOWEVER, TAX ON TOTAL DISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN PAID. ACCORDING TO SECTION 69, THE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED IN THE YEAR WHEN DEC LARATION OR RETRACTION IS MADE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IT CANNOT B E ADDED IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR SINCE, THE INVESTMENT IN QUESTION O R INVESTMENT IS NOT RECOVERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT IS NOT INDICATED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, WHATEVER ADD ITION IS TO BE MADE IS SUBJECT MATTER FOR A. Y.2006-07AND NOT IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT IS FOUND AND INTERROGATION O N SUBJECT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR NO SUCH PAPER RELATING DISCLOSURE IS FOUND, 6 6 THEN, NO ASSESSEE WILL MAKE DECLARATION ON FREE WIL L UNLESS UNDUE INFLUENCE IS EXERCISED. BALANCE SHEET WAS FILED FOR ALL THE YEARS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS DUTY OF A.O. TO VERI FY THE CORRECTNESS OF BALANCE SHEET AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VIS-A-VIS IN VESTMENTS AND SOURCES WHICH CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE THE EVIDENCE ON PRESUMPTIVE GROUND. EVEN COST CAN BE EVALUATED FROM VIDEOGRAPHY BUT NO SUCH EXERCJSE WAS MADE AND THE EXPLANATION OF APPELLANT ON EACH ITEM WITH SUPPORTING WAS NOT VERIFIED. LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CARPENTERS CLASSICS (EXIM) PVT. LTD. V/S. DCIT (299 ITR 124) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SU BMITTED HIS COMMENTS VIDE LETTER NO.BRD/ACIT/CC.I/SPA/REMAND RE PORT/08- 09, DATED 10.09.2008 THAT THE DETAILS REGARDING EXP ENDITURE FOR RENOVATION OF THE 'NISHTA' BUNGALOW WERE SUBMITTED, BUT THE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. THE SAME NOW PRODUCED BEFORE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD. THE BILLS SUBMITTED BEFORE_CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD VIDE SCH.1. SR.NO.7 ISS UED BY M/S. MAHALAXMI ASSOCIATED, DATED 21/10/1998, BILL NUMBER APPEARS 121 AND AT SR.NO.8 DATED 13/11/1998, BILL NUMBER APPEAR S 116. IT APPARENTLY SHOWS THAT THE BILLS ARE FABRICATED. HEN CE, ASSESSEE'S PLEA FOR ADMISSION THE SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED. MOREO VER, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED RS.50 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT INVESTED IN RENOVATION OF THE BUNGALOW AND I N ITS FURNITURE AND VARIOUS FIXTURES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND PO ST SEARCH INQUIRY. THE SAME WAS RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE, THEREFORE, RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y.2000-01. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE AR GUMENTS, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BE DISRE GARDED AND THE ADDITION OUTLINED AS ABOVE BE CONFIRMED. 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS WELL GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. THE APPEL LANT HAD DISCLOSED RS.50 LAKHS AS UNDECLARED INCOME IN HIS S TATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) INITIALLY RECORDED ON 19.01.2006 ON ACCO UNT OF RENOVATION OF NISTHA BUNGALOW STATED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN JULY 1999, IN ITS FURNITURE AND FIXTURES. APPELLANT AGAIN ADMITTED TH E SAME UNDECLARED INCOME OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 28.03.2006 (I.E. TWO MONTH S LATER) IN HIS REPLY TO QUESTION NO.25 WHICH MEANS NO UNDUE PRESSU RE OR COERCION WAS EXERCISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. BOTH THE TIMES, TH E CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT A ND BOTH THESE 7 7 STATEMENTS WERE ALSO ENDORSED BY HIM AS WELL. IN OT HER WORDS, THE DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS MADE BY THE AP PELLANT OUT OF HIS FREE WILL IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS CHARTERED ACCO UNTANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT REMAINED SILENT FOR ABOUT 19 MONTHS A BOUT UNDUE PRESSURE ALLEGED TO BE EXERCISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY, THE APPELLANT HAD CHOS EN TO RETRACT THE STATEMENTS ON 24.09.2007 WHICH WERE RECORDED ABOUT 19 MONTHS EARLIER. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT ADMITTED ON 22.11.2 007 THAT HE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEN TH E ENTRIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE RELI ED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ALSO, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT THAT SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN FURNITUR E AND FIXTURES WAS WITHDRAWAL FROM THE FIRM M/S. CHEMFILT BUT IT MAY B E MENTIONED HERE THAT BOOK OF THE FIRM WERE REJECTED U/S 145 DUE TO SPECIFIC DEFECTS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ITS ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CES OF INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE AND FIXTURES. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF RENOVATION OF NISTHA BUNGALOW STATED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN JULY 1 999. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT STILL MAINTAI NS THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 LAKHS WHICH ITSELF IS EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS NOT TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSER OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE RENOVATION, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES. HENCE, THE CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEDED TO WHICH ARE HERE BY REJECTED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HENCE, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISS ED. 8 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A ), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHER (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S MSK PROJECTS (I) LTD. VS. ACIT [IT(SS)A NO.229 & 238/AH D/2005, ORDER DATED 27-05-2011. 8 8 9 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS FOLLOWS:- (A) CARPENTERS CLASSICS (EXMIN) (P) LTD. VS. DCIT ( 2007) 108 ITD 142 (BANG) (B) KANTILAL C SHAH VS. ACIT (2011) 142 TTJ (AHD) 233 (C) BACHITTAR SINGH VS. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P&H) (D) ACIT VS. HUKUM CHAND JAIN & OTHERS (2011) 337 ITR 238 (CHHATISGARH) (E) T P INDRAKUMAR VS. ITO (2010) 322 ITR 454 (KAR) (F) RAVINDRA D TRIVEDI VS. CIT (2008) 215 CTR (RAJ) 313 (G) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS (2007) 207 CTR (DEL) 196 (H) ACIT VS. EXPRESSO INVESTMENTS (2006) 8 SOT 287 (MUMBAI) (I) KESRI K DEBOO VS. ACIT (2009) 313 ITR 186 (BOM) (J) HIRALAL MAGANLAL & CO. VS. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 113 (MUMBAI) 10 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH VARIOU S JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE. WE HAVE ALS O PERUSED THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED RS.50 LAKHS IN REPLY TO QUEST ION NO.29 AS UNDER:- 9 9 Q. 29:- DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ? A. 29:- AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DOCUME NTS FOUND AND CONFRONTED TO ME AND IN THE TOTALITY OF THE SITUATI ON ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO MY RESIDENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT ABOUT RS.50 LACS OF MY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS GONE INTO RENOVATIO N, ADDITIONAL FURNITURE AND FIXTURE AT MY RESIDENCE AND OTHER THI NGS IS HEREBY OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR WHICH I AM PREPARED TO PAY DUE TAX ES THEREON IN THE DUE COURSE OF TIME. THIS OBSERVATION HAS ALSO BEEN REINFORCED BY THE OPINION GIVEN BY MY CA SHRI KIRAN M PATEL. THEREFOR E I OFFER THE ABOVE STATED INCOME OF RS.50 LACS FOR TAXATION. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS GIVEN WITHOUT ANY COERCION. THE STATEMENT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE AND IT IS LEGALLY BOU ND TO ME. THE RETRACTION WAS MADE AFTER 19 MONTHS, THE ADMISS ION WAS WITHOUT ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE, COERCION AND MIS-CONCE PTION OF THE FACTS, WHICH WAS ENDORSED BY THE CA OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THIS ADMISSION EVEN AFTER TWO MO NTHS OF HIS STATEMENT AND PROMISED TO PAY TAX ON IT. HE HAD NOT MAINTAINED PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EXPENDITURE OF FURNIT URE. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN AY 2006-07. THE DEPARTMENT HAD EVIDENCE OF VIDEOGRAPHY OF ALL DECOR ATION OF THE BUNGLOW OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ESTOPPED THE INVESTIGAT ION AUTHORITY TO PROBE OR INVESTIGATE THE INVESTMENTS IN BUNGLOW BY SURRENDERING AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50 LACS. TH E RETRACTION LETTER WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE DDIT OR NO INTIMATION FOR RETRACTION WAS SENT TO HIGHER AUTHORITY OF INVESTIGATION WING AS WELL AS R EGULAR CIT. THE EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND NOT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ADDIT IONAL 10 10 FURNITURE & FIXTURES, RENOVATION & OTHER THINGS. TH US, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 23-03-2012 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (T R MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 23-03-2012 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SUDARSHAN P AMIN, NEESTHA, VINUKAKA MARG, VALLABH VIDYANAGAR, ANAND 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CI RCLE-1, BARODA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-B, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD