Sh. Sandeep Agarwal, New Delhi V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 2963/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Retraction; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] ITA NO.2963/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. SANDEEP AGARWAL, C/O- M/S. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD PAN :ABPPA7461A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER DATED 31/03/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KANPUR [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRM ING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN FRAMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW. APPELLANT BY MS. RANO JAIN, ADV. MS. MANSI JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING 08.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.07.2021 2 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,98,880/- ON ACCOU NT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISCLOSURE MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND THAT TOO BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FINDINGS AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WIT HOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT IN ANY CASE AND IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.7,98,880/- BY TREATING IT AS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN GIVING DIRE CTION TO TAKE ACTION IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION ENTERPRISES ( P) LTD., MORE SO WHEN THIS CASE WAS NOT BEFORE HIM AND THAT TOO WITH OUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 5. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT REVERSI NG THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT ON 13/02/2013 AT THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER CASES OF PANCHSHEEL GROU P. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE MADE DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 1 CRORE IN STATEMENT RECO RDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28/04/2014, DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,29,730/-. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT AGAINST DIS CLOSURE OF RS. 1 CRORE, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F 92,01,120/-, WHICH CONSISTED OF 6 LAKH IN HIS OWN CASE AND 3 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 86,01,120/- IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION ENTERPRI SES PRIVATE LIMITED (IN SHORT M/S. INSPIRATION) AND, THEREFOR E, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 7,98,880/- (RS.1,00,00,000 RS.92,01,120) WAS HEL D AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING LY, ADDITION WAS MADE IN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30/03/2015. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE FILIN G RETURN OF INCOME OF M/S INSPIRATION AND THE ASSESSEE, ALL T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE RECONCILED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S INSPIRATION. ON RECONCILIATION, CASH OF 6 LAKH WAS DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AMOUNT OF 86,01,120/- WAS DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF M/S INSPIRATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION EXAMINED ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND AFTER VERIFICATION, ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF 86,01,120/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER, WHO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 17/10/2016 SUBMITTED THAT I N VIEW OF THE VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF M/S INSPIRATION SHOULD BE ENHANCED BY 62,05,880/-. ON THIS REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REJOINDER D ATED 04/02/2017, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED AS HOW T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RECONCILED WITH THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF 86,01,120/- HAS BEEN WORKED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION. THE SAID REJOINDER H AS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER ON PAGE 12 TO 17. AFTER CONSIDERING SUBMISSION ON BOTH SIDE I.E. THE 4 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER. IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF R S. 7,98,880/- BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAS MADE SURRENDER OF RS. 1 C RORE DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. WHILE HE HAS D ISCLOSED ONLY RS. 92,01,120/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THAT HE HAS SHOWN ALL OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME EITHER IN INDIVIDUAL EDACITY OR IN HANDS OF COMPANY M/S. INSPIRATION ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. THE LD. A.R. HAS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS IN SUPPORT OF A O TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS. 7,98,880/-. THEREFORE, IN HIS OPINI ON, ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOU S CASE LAWS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE NO ADDITION SH OULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DOCUME NTS SEIZED WHICH INDICATE FOR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AN D THAT OF THE COMPANY I.E. M/S. INSPIRATION ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF DAYAVANTI VS. CIT (75 TAXM AN.COM 308(DEL.) DATED 27.10.2016, HON'BLE HIGH COURT, DEL HI HAS HELD THAT EVEN STATEMENT OF APPELLANT DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION MAY BE TREATED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BY THE AO. THUS, I DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE VARIOUS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND ADDITION OF RS. 7,98,880/- IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE REMAND REPORT THAT THERE IS DISCREPANCY IN THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APP ELLANT IN THE CASE OF COMPANY M/S. INSPIRATION ENTERPRISES (P) LT D. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT INSTEAD OF FURNISHING DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AND EXPEN DITURE YEAR WISE, THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY CLUBBING IT ONLY IN ONE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN REMAN D REPORT DATED 20.03.2017. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKEN SUITABLE RE MEDIAL ACTION IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. 2.1 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL (IN SHORT THE TRIBUNAL) RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPROD UCED ABOVE. 5 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 3. BEFORE US, THE PARTIES APPEARED THROUGH VIDEO CONFE RENCING FACILITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER-BOOK CONTAININ G PAGES 1 TO 72. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ALSO F ILED A PAPER- BOOK CONTAINING CASE LAWS. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO ST ATEMENT OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, AVAILABLE ON PAGE 5-10 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE T O QUESTION NO. 18, SURRENDER WAS MADE TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPART MENT AND BY PEACE OF MIND AND THERE WAS AS SUCH NO BASIS FOR TH E FIGURE OF RS. 1 CRORE AND IT WAS JUST ESTIMATION. SHE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT LATER ON, WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THE FIGURE S WERE TALLIED AND IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D INCOME WAS OF 92,01,210/- AND ACCORDINGLY AMOUNT OF 86,01,120/-WAS DECLARED IN THE CASE OF M/S. INSPIRATION' AND 6 LAKH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO PAPER-BOOK PAGES 24-26, WHICH ARE COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS RELATES TO M/S. INS PIRATION AND PEAK OF RECEIPT OR CREDIT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO 86,01,120/-, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF M/ S. INSPIRATION. OUT OF THE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENC E OF THE ASSESSEE OF 6,12,580/-, THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE OF 12,580/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT HAS BEEN DECLARED AS UNEXPLAIN ED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HER, IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO DECLARE THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME APPEARING IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMEN TS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED AND THEREFORE MAKING ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF 7,98,880/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT 6 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 JUSTIFIED, WHEN NO ADVERSE COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE EI THER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME THE ASSESSEE. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CAS E OF THE DAYAWANTI- (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A ) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS, AS IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE A HABITUAL OFFENDER IN THE SEIZED MATER IAL, WHICH WAS NEVER EXPLAINED IN A REASONABLE MANNER. TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THOUGH THE ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONCL USIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW T HAT IT IS INCORRECT , SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER & PRODUCE CO LTD (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NARE SH KUMAR AGGARWAL, REPORTED IN 369 ITR 171, WHEREIN IT IS HE LD THAT MERE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY DOCU MENTARY PROOF, SHALL NOT BE USED IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PE RSONS WHO MADE SUCH STATEMENT. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMI TTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 1 CRORE AND SAID STATEMEN T WAS NEVER RETRACTED. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHAGIRATH AGGARWAL VS CIT (2013) 351 ITR 141 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 1 32(4) OF THE ACT CAN BE RELIED UPON EVEN WITHOUT CORROBORATION B Y THE DEPARTMENT. THE LEARNED DR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BANNALAL JAT C ONSTRUCTION 7 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 PRIVATE LIMITED VS ACIT REPORTED IN (2019) 106 TAXM ANN.COM 128 (SC). 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES ON T HE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON REC ORD. IN THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME O F RS. 1 CRORE IN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. FOR R EADY REFERENCE, A TYPED COPY OF RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 6.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE SURRENDER WA S ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH ESTIMATES OF THE CASH AND OTHER DOCU MENTS SEIZED. NO CALCULATION OF THE DOCUMENT-WISE OR ITEM-WISE SU RRENDER AMOUNT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE STATEMENT. BEFORE U S, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH FOUND HAS BEEN OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHATEVER AMOUNT REFLECTED IN SEIZED DO CUMENT, WHICH WERE PERTAIN TO M/S. INSPIRATION, HAS BEEN WORKED OUT TO 86,01,120/- AND DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF M/S. INSP IRATION. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WORKED OUT THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH HAS NOT BEE N DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF M/S INSPIRATION. THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THE MISTAKE OR ERROR IN THE DISCL OSURE AMOUNT BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A RETRACTION AND RATHER IT IS HONOURING OF THE STATEMENT. IF ANY ERROR IS POINTED OUT IN THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT, SAME IS TO BE ALLOWE D. IF BY MISTAKE, 2+2 (TWO PLUS TWO) HAS BEEN CALCULATED TO 5 (FIVE) IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, THEN IT IS WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE ERROR AND IT CANNOT BE SAID EITHER RETRACTION OR DISHONOURING OF THE STATEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TREAT THE BALANCE 1 (ONE) AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ANY SUCH ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE CASE OF BHAGIRATH AGGRWAL (SUPRA) ALSO THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT, IF THE ADMI SSION IS INCORRECT, SAME WOULD NOT BE BINDING. THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 9 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 11. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLAN T CONTENDED THAT THE STATEMENT MADE BY AN ASSESS COULD ALWAYS BE SUB SEQUENTLY RETRACTED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE AN ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT THE ADMISSION WAS IN CORRECT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE PLACED RELIANCE ON A DIVISION B ENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT TITLED ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME- TAX: (2009) 316 ITR 0260. HOWEVER, THAT CASE WAS NO T ONE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE U/S 132 OF THE SAID ACT. FURTHERMORE, I N THE PRESENT CASE NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT /ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE ADMISSION MADE BY HIM WAS INCORRECT I N ANY WAY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO IS INSISTING THAT IT IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO CORROBORATE THE STATEMENT OF ADMISSIO N MADE BY HIM AND UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT CORROBORATES TH E SAME, THE STATEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. WE ARE AFRAID THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT POSITION OF LAW. THE ADMISSION ONCE MADE CAN CERTAI NLY BE RETRACTED, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, AND IT CAN ALSO BE SHO WN TO HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SOME MISTAKE OR TO BE OTHERWISE INCORREC T. BUT, THE ONUS WOULD BE ON THE MAKER OF THAT ADMISSION. IN THIS CA SE IT IS THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE WHO HAS ADMITTED AND SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.1.75 CRORES AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO SHOW THAT HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE IN MAKING TH AT ADMISSION AND THAT THE SAID ADMISSION WAS INCORRECT . HE HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN SEIZED I N AS MUCH AS THE COPIES HAD BEEN SUPPLIED TO HIM. HOWEVER, HE DI D NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ADMISSION WAS INCORR ECT IN ANY WAY. THAT BEING THE POSITION, THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE CAN NOT RESILE FROM HIS EARLIER STATEMENT MADE ON 10-11.11.2005 AND 21. 11.2005. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED EXTERNALLY) 6.2 THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS ALSO RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA) TO HI GHLIGHT THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE STATEMENT TO SH OW THAT IT WAS INCORRECT. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PULLANGOD E RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA: (1973) 91 IT R 18 SC FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AN ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLU SIVE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE STATEMENT TO SHOW THAT IT WAS INCORRECT. THERE CANNOT BE ANY 10 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 DOUBT ABOUT THIS POSITION IN LAW, BUT, IN THE PRESE NT CASE THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ADMISSIONS MADE BY HIM WERE INCORRECT. THE STATEMEN TS RECORDED U/S 132 (4) OF THE SAID ACT ARE CLEARLY RELEVANT AN D ADMISSIBLE AND THEY CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE. IN FACT, ONCE THERE I S A CLEAR ADMISSION, VOLUNTARILY MADE, ON THE PART OF THE ASS ESSEE, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE AT THE HANDS OF THE REVENUE. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED EXTERNALLY) 6.3 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME APPEARING IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THE ERRO R IN STATEMENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION ALSO ACCEPTED THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF SURRENDERED AMOUNT DURING THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE RETURNED INCO ME, JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED SAID AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 132(4). THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN COMPLETE DIS REGARD TO THE ERROR POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN SURRENDERED AM OUNT. 6.4 WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT REL ATED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CI T(A) TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION IN THE CASE OF M/S INSPIRATION ALSO GOES TO PROVE THAT, IF ANY HIGHER AMOUNT WAS TO BE ASSESSED LOOKI NG TO THE SURRENDER, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN THE CAS E OF M/S INSPIRATION AND NOT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND 11 ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2017 DELETE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 TH JULY, 2021. RK/- (DTDC) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI