Shri Jayantilal Thakordas Jariwala, Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-4, Surat

ITA 2456/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94394 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIBHA BHALLA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Loose papers; Retraction
• Section: 142(1); 69; 132

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2456/AHD/2009 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 SHRI JAYANTILAL THAKORDAS JARIWALA SURVEY NO.91, OPP: NAVIN FLOURINE UDHNA NAVSARI ROAD BHESTAN, SURAT. PAN : AAWPJ 4444 K VS ACIT, CENT.CIR.4 SURAT. ./ ITA NO.2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO NO.239/AHD/2009 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 ACIT, CENT.CIR.4 SURAT. VS SHRI JAYANTILAL T. JARIWALA SURVEY NO.91, OPP: NAVIN FLORINE UDHANA NAVSARI ROAD, SURAT. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT.VIBHA BHALLA, CIT-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY KAPADIA WITH SHRI ANKUR D. SHAH ! / DATE OF HEARING : 25/08/2015 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/09/2015 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS-APPEALS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II DATED 17.6.2009 PASSED FOR THE ASS TT.YEAR 2007-08. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTION ALSO BEARING NO.239/AHD/2009. ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE A RE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULE 8 OF INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE ) TRIBUNAL RULES. IN BRIEF, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 CRORES IN THE STATEME NT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THIS ADDITION TO RS.2 CRORES ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS GROU ND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS INTER-CONNECTED WITH THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THOUGH HE HAS DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.2 CRORES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL CONSIDERED DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ADDITION COULD NOT EXCE ED RS.99.30 LAKHS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.2 CRORES. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE AD DITION TO RS.99.30 LAKHS. 3. IN THE CO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY INDEPE NDENT GROUND OF APPEAL. THE CO HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CI T(A)S FINDING. THUS, THE ISSUES AGITATED IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS WELL AS IN THE CO ARE COMMON. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 26.7.2006. THE ASSESSEE IS A MEMBER RELATED TO COLOURTEX GROUP OF SURAT. THE AS SESSEE IS THE HEAD OF THE GROUP. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.3.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.55,61,352/-. THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 4.6.2008 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO, THEREAFTER, ISSUED A QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SEC TION 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 9.6.2008. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACC OUNTS, THE LD.AO HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT TH E RESIDENTIAL ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 3 PREMISES, CASH OF RS.12,36,880/- WAS FOUND. THE SE ARCH PARTY HAS SEIZED A CASH OF RS.12 LAKHS FROM THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE LD.AO HAS CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF CASH FOUND AT THE PREMISES. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PROVIDES THAT WHERE IN ANY FINANCIA L YEAR, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEW ELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE AND SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE ARTICLE IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINT AINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLAN ATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION O F THE AO, SATISFACTORY, THE EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THE LD.AO FURTHER OBSERVE D THAT SECTION 69A POSTULATES THREE CONDITIONS VIZ. (A) THE ASSESSEE I S FOUND TO BE OWNER OF THE MONEY, (B) MONEY IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS, IF ANY MAINTAINED, AND (C) THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATUR E AND SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF MONEY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NO T IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY. THEN SUCH MONEY OR VALUE OF B ULLION JEWELLERY ETC. WOULD BE TREATED AS AN INCOME OF ASSESSEE. HE, ACCO RDINGLY, REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION O F RS.12,36,880/-. 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S.BHAVIN FASHION, SURAT WHO IS A M EMBER OF THE GROUP HAVING PAN : AACFB 6356 J WAS ALSO SURVEYED. A DEF ICIT OF RS.7,84,980/- WAS FOUND IN THE CASH BOOK OF THIS FI RM. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASH HAD BEEN TAKEN AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE PARTNERS/DIRECTORS/ FAMILY MEMBERS OF OTHER CON CERNS. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT SIN CE THERE WAS A DEFICIT IN THE SOME OF THE GROUP CONCERNS, THEREFORE, THE S OURCE OF THE CASH AT THE RESIDENCE OF HEAD OF THE GROUP FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH DEFICIT IN OTHER CONCERNS . THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THIS DELETION SPECIFICALLY IN THE GR OUNDS TAKEN BEFORE US. ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 4 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ELABORATE LY DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AT THIS STAGE. 6. THE MAIN CONTROVERSY IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO T HE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 CRO RES, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4). HIS INCOM E DESERVES TO BE ASSESSED BY MAKING ADDITION OF THIS RS.10 CRORES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF OTHER GROUP CONCERNS HAS BEEN MADE WHERE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. SINCE, SHRI JA YANTILAL JARIWALA CLAIMED HIMSELF AS HEAD OF THE GROUP AND ALSO OWNED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS/GROUP ENTITIES, THEREFORE, SUFFICIENT MATERIAL FOR CORROBORATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE. THE LD.AO HAS PRODUCED THE DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM ON PAGE NO.9 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. HE POINTED OUT THAT TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.8,89,57,186/- HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS COMPAN IES. TELESCOPING OF THIS ADDITION IS BEING GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, AGA INST THE DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.10 CRORES. 7. ON APPEAL, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS R ECORDED A FINDING THAT OUT OF THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.8,89,57,186/ - MADE BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL, THE ONLY AMOUNT S USTAINED AFTER THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING IS OF RS.90,30,782/-. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN DETAILS IN TABULAR FORM AT PAGE NO.4 OF THE ORDER. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEREAFTER, APPRE CIATED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS AU THORATIVE JUDGMENTS AND ARRIVED A CONCLUSION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF MERE DISCLOS URE CANNOT BE MADE. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THOU GH HE HAS MADE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.2 CRORES IN THE NOTE APP ENDED WITH THE RETURN, BUT, ULTIMATELY, THE MATERIAL WHICH CAN GOA D THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.90,30,782/-. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 5 THAT DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM ALONG WITH RETURN BE IG NORED AND HIS ASSESSABLE INCOME BE RESTRICTED TO RS.99,30,782/-. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY FOR TWO REASONS, VIZ. (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DISC LOSURE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, WHICH ON FILING OF THE RETURN, HE REAFFIRME D AT RS.2 CRORES. THIS RE-AFFIRMATION IN THE FORM OF NOTE APPENDED WITH TH E RETURN DEPICTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY ACCEPTED THE DISCLOSUR E OF RS.2 CRORES, THEREFORE, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BRO UGHT DOWN FROM THIS RS.2 CRORES. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT ANY STATEMEN T OF DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, TH EN SUCH STATEMENT IS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE A U TURN FROM THE DISCLOSURE VOLUNTARILY MADE BY HIM. SHE FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT ALONG WITH RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPENDED A NOTE WHEREIN, HE HAS CONTENDED THAT IN CASE HIS INCOME BY WAY OF ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE AO EXCEEDS RS.2 CRORES, THEN, HIS DISCLOSURE MAY ALSO BE ACCEPTED UPTO THAT AMOUNT. THIS TYPE OF CONDITIONAL RETRACTION W OULD SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACTUALLY RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT M ADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 CRORES. 9. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF SEARCH, THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT ABLE TO LAY ITS HANDS ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH CAN BE USED FOR CO RROBORATION FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNAC COUNTED INCOME OF RS.10 CRORES. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DISCLOSURE MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) HAD FALLEN FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE VARIOUS AUTHORI TIES ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. ALL THE AUTHORITIES I.E. HONBLE HIGH C OURTS, ITAT ETC. ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR APPROACH WHILE PROPOUNDING MEANI NG OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, THAT MERE DISCLOSURE WOULD NOT B E SUFFICIENT TO PUT ANY ASSESSEE WITH TAX LIABILITY. THE ADJUDICATOR W OULD SEEK ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 6 CORROBORATION WITH OTHER MATERIAL FOR PUTTING ANY A SSESSEE UNDER THE TAX LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DISCLOSURE. HE TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A), AND ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE CIRCU LAR OF THE CBDT NO.286/2/2003 WHEREBY THE BOARD HAS APPRAISED ITS O FFICERS NOT TO TAKE CONFESSION WITHOUT COLLECTING THE MATERIAL FOR SUPP ORTING SUCH CONFESSION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIE D UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) CIT VS. CHANDRAKUMAR JETHMAL KOCHAR, 55 TAXMANN.COM 292 (GUJ); II) ACIT VS. HAREKRISHNA EXPORTS, ITA NO.961/AHD/2009; III) ACIT VS. JORAWAR SINGH M. RATHOD, 148 TAXMANN 35 (A HD); IV) DCIT VS. PRAMUKH BUILDERS, 112 ITD 179 (AHD)(TM); V) KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT, 220 CTR (GUJ) 138; VI) SHRI NARENDRA B. SANCHAWALA, ITA NO.222/AHD/2002; VII) DHANVARSHA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD. VS. DCIT, 105 TTJ (PUNE) 376; VIII) BANSAL STRIPS P. LTD. & ORS., VS. CIT 100 TTJ (DEL) 665; IX) CIT VS. M.S. AGRAWAL (HUF, 11 DTR (MP) 169; X) MANGE RAM MITTAL VS. ACIT, 105 TTJ (DEL)(SB) 594; HE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF ALL TH E DECISIONS REFERRED BY THE AO AND POINTED OUT THAT HOW THESE DECISION A RE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 10. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY, THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERA TIVE UPON TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS SECTION. IT READS AS UNDER: THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY, DURING THE COURSE OF T HE SEARCH OR SEIZURE, EXAMINE ON OATH ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCU MENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH EXAMI NATION MAY THEREAFTER BE USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDIN G UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922 ), OR UNDE R THIS ACT. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE EXAMINATION OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS SUB- SECTI ON MAY BE NOT ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 7 MERELY IN RESPECT OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DO CUMENTS OR ASSETS FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH, BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF ALL MATTERS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY INVESTIGAT ION CONNECTED WITH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX AC T, 1922 (11 OF 1922 ), OR UNDER THIS ACT. 11. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION WOULD REVEAL THAT IT EMPOWERS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXAMINE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SEIZURE ANY PERSON ON OATH. THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE STA TEMENT RECORDED UNDER THIS SECTION WILL BE ADMITTED IN THE EVIDENCE CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCEEDING. BEFORE, WE EMBARK UPON AN INQUIRY ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE SO AS TO FIND OUT WHE THER THE ADDITION OF RS.10 CORES IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE ON THE BASIS OF HIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT OR NOT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS TWO LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOTE ANNEXED WI TH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ALL THESE THREE ITEMS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER. THEY READ AS UNDER: QUESTION NO.33 AND ITS REPLY SHOWING DISCLOSURE QUESTION NO.33: IN REFERENCE TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN Q.NO.1 TO Q.32 ABOUT YOU, YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, BUSINESS COMPA NIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, DO YOU WANT TO STATE ANY ADDITIO NAL THING ABOUT THE TAXES FOR THE SAME ? ANSWER NO.33: YES, I AM MAKING VOLUNTARY DISCLOSUR E TODAY OF RS.10 CRORES OF INCOME BECAUSE OF OUR COMPANIES, FI RMS ARE MANAGED BY ME THROUGH MY EMPLOYEES AND BECAUSE OF T HAT MY EMPLOYEES OR ANY OTHER PERSONS MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED MISTAKES WHICH IS QUITE POSSIBLE AND CONSIDERING THAT VOLUNT ARY DISCLOSURE IS MADE BY ME AND I SHALL PAY THE TAX ON THIS TIME. B ESIDES ON THIS VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FURTHER INFORMATION SUCH AS IT EM WISE, ASSESSEE-WISE ASSESSMENT YEAR-WISE, DETAILED INFORM ATION, I SHALL PRESENT IN 10 DAYS TIME, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE ACCEPT ED. EXTRACT OF LETTER DATED 18.9.2006: THE REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT MAILER, ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 EVENING, LAST REMAINING PROHIBITORY ON FAR AT OUR I NDIVIDUAL ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 8 PREMISES WAX REVOKED AND A STATEMENT OF SHRI JAYANT IBHAI WAS RECORDED WHEN BEFORE CONCLUDING THE SAID STATEMENT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND SURRENDERING OF INCOME OF RS. 10,00, 00,000 (RUPEES TEN CRORES ONLY) WAS MADE. IN REFERENCE TO THE SAID DISCLOSURE, WE HAVE TO MOS T RESPECTFULLY CLARIFY THAT THE AFORESAID SURRENDERING OF INCOME I S A PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION, VERIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS, IMPOUNDED RECORDS AND SUCH OT HER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE AVAILABLE, FOUND AND IDENTIFIED , AS THE CASE MAY BE, FROM WHICH THE DETAILED BREAK-UP, I.E. THE HEAD OF ACCOUNT., YEAR, ASSESSEES, COMPANIES, FIRMS, FAMILY MEMBERS, ETC. SHALL BE FURNISHED IN DUE COURSE. THE AFORESAID DISCLOSURE IS MADE TO COVER ANY ERROR , OMISSIONS, DISCREPANCIES THAT MAY BE FOUND IN ANY MANNER BASED -ON ANY ENTRIES, NOTES, SCRIBBLING, NOTINGS ETC. IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS, TRANSACTIONS ETC., F ORMING PERT OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL OR EVEN FOUND, IMPOUNDED, SE IZED OR IDENTIFIED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES, RECORDS ETC. AS ALSO TO COVER ANY CLAIMS, EXPENSES, DEDUCTIONS, DISCREPANCIES IN INVENTORY, INVESTMENTS, ASSETS FOUND IN ITS PRESENT FORM AS TH E CASE MAY BE, IN THE CASE OF ANY OF THE ASSESSES, COMPANIES, CONC ERNS, FIRMS OR PARTNERS OR RELATIVES OR EMPLOYEES OR SISTER CONCER NS / ASSOCIATE CONCERNS OF OUR GROUP. THIS VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME MAY KINDLY BE W ORKED OUT ON LOGICAL AND JUDICIOUS INTERPRETATION, OF THE DEFINI TION OF INCOME UNDER THE ACT AND AS PER THE NORMALLY ACCEPTED, INT ERPRETED, IMPLEMENTED AND UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLES OF INCOME CO MMERCIAL PARLANCE AS ALSO BASED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT MATTER.......' . THE EXTRACT OF LETTER DTD. 30-10-20.06 WAS AS UNDER : 'IN CONTINUATION OF OUR EARLIER SUBMISSION DATED SE PTEMBER 16, 2006 REFERRING TO THE PRELIMINARY VOLUNTARY DISCLOS URE AND SURRENDERING OF INCOME OF RS.10,00,00,000 (RUPEES T EN CRORES ONLY) WE HAVE TO STATE AS FOLLOWS. 1. THE AFORESAID-PRELIMINARY VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE O F INCOME, WAS MADE WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LONG DRAWN LITIGATION , SAVE COST AND TIME. THIS, VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE IS MADE TO COV ER ANY DISALLOWANCES, DEDUCTIONS, ERRORS, OMISSIONS AND / OR ANY OTHER DISCREPANCIES IN RECORD, DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS, T RANSACTIONS, ETC FORMING PAN OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL AND / OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES, RECORDS, ETC, IN THE CASE OF ANY OF THE ASSESSES, ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 9 COMPANIES, CONCERNS, FIRMS OR PARTNERS OR RELATIVES OR EMPLOYEES OR SISTER CONCERNS / ASSOCIATE CONCERNS OF OUR GROU P. : 2. ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT, OF DISCLOSUR E WOULD BE ADDED INTO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR OF SHRI JAYANTILAL THAKORDAS JARIWALA WHO IS THE HE AD OF THE FAMILY, SUBJECT TO EXAMINATION, VERIFICATION AND EV ALUATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS, IMPOUNDED RECORDS AND SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE AVAILABLE, FOUND AND IDENTIFIED, AS THE C ASE MAY BE. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3. IN ALL HUMILITY, IT IS THE CASE OF COLOURTEX G ROUP OF COMPANIES THAT ALL EXPENSES DEDUCTIONS AND OTHER CLAIMS MADE BY THEM ARE GENUINE AND ADMISSIBLE AT LAW AND THEREFORE THE AMO UNT OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE REFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE HAS N OT BEEN SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN REFERENCE TO ANY EXPENSE S, DISCREPANCIES OR ASSETS. WE HOPE THE INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION PROVIDED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT ENCLOS URES SHALL BE AMPLY SELF EXPLANATORY, HOWEVER, SHOULD YOUR HONOUR REQUIRE ANY FURTHER INFORMATION OR EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD, WE SHALL BE PLEASED TO PROVIDE ON HEARING FROM YOUR END. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME A SPECIFIC NOTE WAS MADE IN REFERENCE TO THE DISCLOSU RE OF INCOME, THEREIN IT WAS WRITTEN THAT 'SCRUTINY AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ALL THE GROUP A SSESSEES, FAMILY NUMBERS, EMPLOYEE, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, ETC. WA S EARNED OUT FOR IDENTIFYING ANY DISCREPANCIES, ERRORS, OMISSION S, MISTAKES ETC. AND BASED ON THAT, THE AMOUNT TO BE TELESCOPED AS W ORKED OUT, COULD NOT EXCEED RS.2,00,00,000/- AS PER THE AVAILA BLE DETAILS. THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 2 CRORES IS TREATED AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES, HOWEVER, IF INCOME IS DETERMINED UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD OF INCOME, IN THE NAME OF ANY OF THE ASSSESSEES REF ERRED TO EARLIER, THE APPROPRIATION IN THE RE-DETERMINED HEA D OF INCOME MAY PLEASE BE PERMITTED. THE AMOUNT STILL REMAINING UNIDENTIFIED RS. 8 CRORE S (RS. 10 CRORES - RS. 2 CRORES) OUT OF THE PRELIMINARY CONDITIONAL DISCLOSURE MADE IS AT PRESENT REDUCED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTERING THE CLAIM. ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 10 HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT / APPELLAT E / REVISION PROCEEDINGS OF ANY OF THE ASSESSEES OF THE COLOURTE X GROUP COVERED DURING THE SEARCH / SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES, DEDUCTIONS, ERRORS, OMIS SIONS -IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS, LOOSE PAPERS, T RANSACTIONS ETC. FORMING PART OF THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES, RECORDS ETC. IS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOM E WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DISCLOSURE OF ASSESSES, EIT HER DUE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OR DEDUCTION OR OTHERWISE THEN TO THE EXTENT OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDI TION BE TELESCOPED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE HEAD OF INCOME AGAIN ST THE DISCLOSURE AND NO SEPARATE ADDITION BE MADE AGAIN I N THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. FURTHER, THE TAX REMAINING REFUNDABLE IN RELATION T O SURPLUS AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE BE ULTIMATELY REFUNDED TO SHRI JAYANTILAL THAKORDAS JARIWALA AFTER, DETERMINING THE INCOME OF ALL THE ASSESSEES ON A LOGICAL BASIS AS PER NORMALLY ACCEPT ED, INTERPRETED, IMPLEMENTED AND UNDERSTOOD PRINCIPLES OF INCOME IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE. 12. NO DOUBT, THE DISCLOSURE OR ADMISSION MADE UNDE R SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE BUT NOT CONCLUSIVE ONE. THIS PRESUMPTION OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS A REBUTTABLE ONE, AND IF AN ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITH THE HELP OF SOME MATERIAL THAT SUCH ADMISSION WAS EITHER MISTAKEN, UNTRUE OR BASED ON MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS , THEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ADMISSION NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. IT IS TRUE THAT ADMISSION BEING DECLARATION AGAINST AN INTERES T ARE GOOD EVIDENCE, BUT THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE, AND A PARTY IS ALWAYS AT LIBERTY TO WITHDRAW THE ADMISSION BY DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY ARE EITHER MISTAKEN OR UNTRUE. IN LAW, THE RETRACTED CONFESSION EVEN MAY FORM THE LEGAL BASIS OF ADMISSION, IF THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT IT WAS TR UE AND WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE. BUT THE BASING THE ADDITION ON A RETRACTED D ECLARATION SOLELY WOULD NOT BE SAFE. IT IS NOT A STRICT RULE OF LAW, BUT ONLY RULE OF PRUDENCE. AS A GENERAL RULE, IT IS UNSAFE TO RELY UPON A RETRACTED CONFESSION WITHOUT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. DUE TO THIS GREY SITUATION, CBDT HAS ISSUED CIRCULAR NO.286/2/2003 PROHIBITING THE DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 11 OFFICIALS FROM TAKING CONFESSION IN THE SEARCH. TH E BOARD IS OF THE VIEW THAT OFTEN THE OFFICIALS USED TO OBTAIN CONFESSIONS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND STOP FURTHER RECOVERY OF THE MATERIAL. SUCH CONFES SIONS HAVE BEEN RETRACTED AND THEN THE ADDITION COULD NOT WITHSTAND THE SCRUTINY OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BECAUSE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND SUPPORTING SUCH ADDITION. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE ABOVE BROAD PR INCIPLE, LET US EXAMINE THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS RETRACTION. 13. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PLACED REL IANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF KIALASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT, 220 CTR (GUJ) 138. IN THIS CASE, SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTIO N 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 4.11.1988. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. HE MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.7 LAKHS. LATER ON, IN JANUARY, 1989, THE ASSESSEE RE TRACTED FROM THE DISCLOSURE AND STATED THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.50,000/- WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THE LD.AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS ON T HE BASIS OF HIS STATEMENT AND OBSERVED THAT THE RETRACTION WAS MADE AFTER A LAPSE OF 2 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY REASON FOR R ETRACTING FROM THE DISCLOSURE. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONCU RRED WITH THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.7 LAKHS TO HIS INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH INDICATED THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS TAKE N FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER DURESS, PRESSURE OR COERCION. THE RETRACTION AFTER LAPSE OF TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED AS AFTER-THOUGHT. THE ISSUE TRAVELLED BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSE RVING THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. THERE SHOULD BE SOME CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S IN PARA-26 OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE COURT ARE WORTH TO NOTE. IT R EADS AS UNDER: 26. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED HEREINABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS EXPLANATION SEEMS TO BE MORE CONVINC ING, HAS NOT ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 12 BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ADDITI ONS WERE MADE AND/OR CONFIRMED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEM ENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. DESPITE T HE FACT THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS LATER ON RETRACTED NO EVIDEN CE HAS BEEN LED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH ADDITIONS UNLESS AND UNTIL, SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FOUND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADMISSION. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT FROM THE STATEMENT RECORD ED AT SUCH ODD HOURS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VOLUNTARY STATEM ENT, IF IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE IS LE D CONTRARY TO SUCH ADMISSION. HENCE THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DIS BELIEVE THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAN ATION DULY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF TH E VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS . 6 LAKHS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITT ED AN ERROR IN IGNORING THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 27. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER, ADDITION OF RS . 1 LAKH MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH IS CONFIRMED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LAKHS IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDRAKUMAR JETHMAL KOCHAR, 55 TAX MANN.COM 292 (GUJ). THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS REPRODUCED THE D ISCUSSION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREAFTER, CONCURRED WITH THE CO NCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPAL LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKS HI (SUPRA),WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN B Y THE TRIBUNAL IS JUST AND PROPER. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY MR. MEHTA, LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLA NT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN COGENT REASONS. THEREFORE, T HE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND QUESTION WILL ALSO ENURE F OR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS FROM THE RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT OTHER CONCERNS WERE NOT BENAMI CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. FOR THE FORGING REASONS, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE REFERRED TO THIS COURT ARE ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 13 14. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REFE RENCE TO A NUMBER OF DECISIONS. WE THINK IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO RE-C APITULATE AND RECITE ALL THE DECISIONS ON THIS LEGAL ASPECT. BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE CORE OF ALL THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ADDITION OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, MERELY ON THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT MADE U NDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX. THE STATEMENT HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AND LATER ON IT IS TO BE INTERPRETED REASONABLY BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE REVENUE. 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE S TATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH EXPLANATION IN LETTER DATED 18. 9.2006 WRITTEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THREE DAYS OF SEARCH, LETTER DATE D 30.10.2006 AND THE NOTE APPENDED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. WHILE DEALING WITH SUCH TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, ONE HAS TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE W OULD BE A PERCEPTIONAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTELLECTUAL CO MPATIBILITY OF TRAINED TEAM OF IRS OFFICERS, VIS--VIS A BUSINESS-MAN WHO MIGHT BE HAPPENED TO BE A SEMI-LITERATE FELLOW AND ATMOSPHERE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THAT COMPANIES/FIRMS ARE MAINTAINED BY HIM THROUGH HIS EMPLOYEES, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, HIS EMP LOYEES OR OTHER PERSONS MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED MISTAKE. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE, HE MADE DISCLOSURE. IN THE LETTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPRAISED THE REVENUE THAT IT IS A PRELIMINARY DISC LOSURE DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THEIR VERIFIC ATION. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 26.7.2006 AND THE PAPERS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE NOT HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE UPTO TH E FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, 2008. THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO THE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS THE MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHI CH CAN ENABLE HIM TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT. THE AO HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CORROBORATE THE DISCLOSURE BY THE ULTIMATE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CA SE OF OTHER ASSESSES, WHOSE INCOME IS TO BE OWNED BY SHRI JAYANTILAL JARI WALA. HE ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 14 REPRODUCED THE DETAILS OF ADDITION IN A TABULAR FOR M AT PAGE NO.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED T HAT AFTER RE- APPRECIATION OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, MOST OF THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED TO THE E XTENT OF RS.99,30,782/-. MOST OF THESE ORDERS NARRATED IN T HE TABLE AT PAGE NO.4 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER ARE BEING CONFIRMED BY THE TR IBUNAL ALSO. ALONG WITH THESE APPEALS, WE HAVE HEARD SOME 32 MORE APPE ALS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS. WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN SEPARATE ORDERS. WE HAVE DULY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE IN INDIVIDUAL HANDS INDEPENDENTLY, AS DEALT BY THE CIT(A) AND MOST OF T HE ADDITIONS STANDS DELETED. THUS, THE ATTEMPT OF THE AO TO DRAW CORRO BORATION FROM THOSE ADDITIONS IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. INSPITE OF SEAR CH, THE DEPARTMENT WAS UNABLE TO LAY ITS HAND ON THE MATERIAL EXHIBITING U NEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 CR ORES. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE CONTROVERSY IN RI GHT PERSPECTIVE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE FINDINGS OF TH E CIT(A). 16. SO FAR AS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TWO ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SANMUKHDAS WADHWAN I, 85 ITD 734 (NAG.) AND M/S.UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD., IT(SS)NO.24 6/MUM/2005 & IT(SS).NO.265/MUM/2006. HE CONTENDED THAT THOUGH T HE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.2 CRORES IN THE NOTE APPE NDED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT HIS INCOME CAN BE ASSESSED LOWER THA N THE RETURNED INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.CIT-DR RELIED UP ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTEN TIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE QUITE DISTINGUISHABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DISCLOSUR E OF RS.10 CRORES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WHILE FILING OF THE R ETURN, ON VERIFICATION OF ALL THE MATERIALS, HE RE-AFFIRMED HIS DISCLOSURE AT RS.2 CRORES. HIS ADMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, COUPLED WITH THE RE-AFFIRMATION ITA NO.2456 AND 2616/AHD/2009 WITH CO 15 AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, WOULD DENUDE HIM T O SAY THAT DISCLOSURE WAS UNDER MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS, BECAUSE, HE WAS N OT SUPPLIED THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THIS DISCLOSURE WAS MADE AFTER TH E PERUSAL OF EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, HE CANNOT SAY THERE IS NO EVI DENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS.2 CRORES. AS DISCUSSED, EARLIER STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) IS ADMISSIBLE E VIDENCE. WE HAVE UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) FOR DELETION OF R S.8 CRORES ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WIT H THE REVENUE IN SUPPORT OF THAT ADDITION, BUT, THE MOMENT THE ASSES SEE HAS RE-AFFIRMED THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.2 CRORES, IT BECOMES AN ABSOLU TE EVIDENCE. THIS DISCLOSURE WAS MADE AFTER DUE DELIBERATION AND CONS ULTATION WITH THE TAX CONSULTANT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE OF FACTS OR MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THE LAW ON THIS AMOUNT. THE LD.FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVENUE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, HEN CE THEY ARE DISMISSED. 18. THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF T HE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/09/2015