Mr. Miten Garg, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3734/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1069 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMILA M BISWAS
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Business income; Search and seizure; Source of fund; Question of law; Capital Gains
• Section: 201; 73; 13; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA . NO. 3 73 4 /DEL/20 1 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR S 201 4 - 15 MR. MITEN GARG, A-2/105, MILAN VIHAR APARTMENTS, PLOT NO.72, I.P. EXTN. DELHI - 110092 V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI TAN/PAN: AAECD1246J (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA SHRI SATYAJIT GOEL, CA RESPONDENT BY: MS. PRAMILA M. BISWAS DATE OF HEARING: 0 9 0 1 20 20 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT: 20 03 20 20 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2017, PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS)-25, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND S:- 1) IT IS CONTENDED THAT DETERMINATION AND INCLUSION OF INCOME OF RS.93,800/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH IS WRONG, PERVERS E, NOT BASED ON EVIDENCES, OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON REC ORDS, BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE. 2) IT IS CONTENDED THAT DETERMINATION AND INCLUSION IN INCOME OFRS.25,59,449/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMEN T IN ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 2 JEWELLERY IS WRONG, PERVERSE, NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE S, OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORDS, BASED ON SURMISE A ND CONJECTURE. 3) IT IS CONTENDED THAT DETERMINATION AND INCLUSION IN INCOME OF RS.14,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINES S INCOME IS WRONG, PERVERSE, NOT BASED ON EVIDENCES, OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORDS, BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURE. 4) THAT UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,21,78,340/- AGAINST INCOME OF RS.81,24,990/- SHOWN IN THE SURMISES AND CONJECTURE TOTALLY DISREG ARDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 07.08.2013 I N THE CASE OF AMRAPALI GROUP AND ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED IN THE SAME SEARCH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A CASH AMOUNTI NG TO RS.66,93,800/- WAS FOUND, OUT OF WHICH RS.61,00,000 /- WAS SEIZED. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN STATEMENT R ECORDED U/S. 131 ON 28.11.2013 DURING POST SEARCH PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE CASH FOUND AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE IN HI S RETURN OF INCOME HAD DECLARED RS.66 LAKHS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND SHOWED IT UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED IN COME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/- WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME STILL REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THE SAME WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 3. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS.25,59,449/- WAS FOUND WHICH HAS BEE N ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 3 ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, DURI NG THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE STATEMENT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED AN ADHOC AMOUNT OF RS.14 LAKHS UNDER THE HEAD UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS, AS CASH RECEIPTS FRO M PURCHASE/SALE OF FLATS, WHICH TOO HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SAME WAS NOT OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ALL THE ADDITI ONS. IN SO FAR AS, ADDITION OF RS,93,800/-, HE HELD THAT SINCE THE TOTAL CASH FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE AND LOCKER AGGREGATED TO RS.66,93,800/-, OUT OF WHICH ONLY RS.66 LAKHS HAS B EEN SURRENDERED, THE BALANCE RS.93,800/- HAS NOT BEEN E XPLAINED WITH EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE JEWELLERY, AMOUNTING TO RS.25,59,449/- ALSO, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF JEWELLERY. LAST LY, ON THE ISSUE OF DECLARATION OF RS.14 LAKHS TOWARDS INCOME FROM PURCHASE/SALE OF FLATS, HE OBSERVED THAT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS REGARDING SALE/ PURCHASE, CONSIDERATION, NAMES, PERSONS, ETC. AND T HEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER EXPLANATION, SUCH ADDITION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. R.S. SINGHVI, SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE TOTAL AMOUNT FOU ND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS RS.66,93,800, THE ASSESSEE ONLY ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 4 SURRENDERED RS.66 LAKHS WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IF SUM OF RS.93,800/- HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED THAT DOESNT MEAN, IT IS UNEXPLAINED CASH AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY PRESUMED IT TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH. THE ASSESSEE HA S INDEPENDENT INCOME AND HAD BEEN REGULARLY FILING TH E RETURN OF INCOME AS A REGULAR ASSESSEE SHOWING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS INCOME, INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES AND CAPITAL GAINS, ETC. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/- CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNEXPLAINED LOOKIN G TO THE HUGE SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY , SUCH ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND DURING T HE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED TH E ENTIRE CASH AND THEREFORE, NOW THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE ST AND THAT OUT OF RS.66,93,800/-, RS.93,800/- STAND EXPLAINED AND HENCE SUCH AN ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON P ERUSAL OF THE FACTS AND RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT AMOUNT OF RS.61,93,800/- WAS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.5 LAKHS WAS FOUND FROM THE BANK LOCKER. OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT, SUM OF RS.61 LAKHS WAS SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 HAD SURRENDERED THE CASH FOUND. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED RS.66 LAKHS IN THE P ROFIT & ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 5 LOSS ACCOUNT AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER T HE HEAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE REVENUES CASE IS THAT SINC E DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN HIS STATEM ENT U/S 131, THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE ENTIRE CASH A ND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT TO INCLUDE RS.93,800/- ALSO. FIRST OF ALL, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED OR DECLARED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.66 LAKHS IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/- ALSO STOOD SURRENDERED AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THE BREAKUP OR F OR BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONL Y STATE THAT WHATSOEVER CASH HAS BEEN FOUND WILL BE OFFERED TO TAX. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS.66,00,000/- OUT OF 66,9 3,800/-, BUT THAT DOESNT IPSO FACTO MEANS THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT STANDS UNEXPLAINED. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOW ING HUGE INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND IS HAVING V ARIOUS SOURCE OF INCOME. IF A PETTY AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/- IS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF A ASSESSEE WHO IS SHOWING HUG E INCOME, THEN IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND IN SUC H KIND OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS TOO MYOPIC A VIEW WHE N THERE IS NO OTHER FACTS AND MATERIAL FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH THAT SUCH A PETTY AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCES. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.93,800/- UNEXPLAINED WHEN ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.66 LAKHS TO TAX. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS.93,800/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 8. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.25,59,449/- ON A CCOUNT OF ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 6 UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 07.08.2013 WAS 804.500 GRAMS AND ASSESSEE S FAMILY CONSIST OF HIMSELF, WIFE, DAUGHTER, AND SON. IF BENEFIT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.1916 DATED 11.05.1994 IS TO BE GIV EN THEN NO AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY CAN BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN FOLLOWING RECONCILIATION IN LINE WITH CB DT CIRCULAR:- RECONCILIATION OF JEWELLERY FOUND WITH CBDT CIRCULA R NO.1916 DATED 11.05.1994 A. PERMISSIBLE JEWELLERY AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR I. ASSESSEE 100 GMS II. WIFE 100 GMS III. DAUGHTER 100 GMS IV. SON 100 GMS TOTAL 950 GMS B. JEWELLERY FOUND FROM LOCKER DURING SEARCH ON 07.08.2013+804.50 GMS. 9. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS JUDGMENT OF I TAT IN THE CASE OF RAKESH MAHAJAN VS DCIT IN ITA NO.1810/D EL /2015 AND IFTIKHAR AHMED VS DCIT IN ITA NO.7086/DEL /2014, WHEREIN, THE TRIBUNAL, FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RATAN LAL VYAPARI LAL JAIN, 339 ITR 351 (GUJ.) HAS ALLOWED THE SAID ADDITION BASED ON CBDT CIRCULAR LIMIT. ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 7 10. LASTLY ON ACCOUNT OF RS.14 LAKHS, HE SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY IT IS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE AND ALREADY ITA T IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA HAS ALLOWED ON THE GROUND T HAT IF SURRENDER IS NOT BACKED BY ANY INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND OR EVIDENCE, THEN MERE ADHOC SURRENDER CANNOT JUSTI FY ADDITION. 11. THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS AN D OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 12. IN SO FAR AS, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELL ERY IS CONCERNED, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE TOTAL JE WELLERY FOUND FROM THE LOCKER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AGGREGA TED TO 804.50 GMS. LOOKING TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND IF T HE BENEFIT OF CBDT GUIDELINE AND LIMIT LAID DOWN IN CIRCULAR N O.1916 (SUPRA), IS TO BE GIVEN THEN THE AGGREGATE WEIGHT O F THE GOLD JEWELLERY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY COMES TO 9 50 GMS., WHICH AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL IS MUCH BELOW THE PRES CRIBED LIMIT AS PER THE CHART INCORPORATED ABOVE. UNDER TH ESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID CIRCULAR HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE VARIOUS COURTS. THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAKESH MAHAJAN VS DCIT AND IFTIKHAR AHM ED VS DCIT (SUPRA) RELYING UPON THE RATIO OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RATAN LAL VYAPARI(SUPRA) HAS D EALT THIS ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS AND FIND ING READS AS UNDER:- ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY EVIDENC E IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE VOUCHERS OR BILLS FOR ACQUISITION OF JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION HAS B EEN THAT ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 8 THESE JEWELLERIES HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED OVER THE PERIO D OF TIME AND ALSO RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGES AND VARI OUS SOCIAL FUNCTIONS. THE AO HAS GIVEN PART BENEFIT OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 WHICH LAYS DOWN THE GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMEN TS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT THE SAID CIRCULAR IS NOT MEANT FOR PROVING THE SOURCE OF ACQ UISITION BUT IT IS MERELY LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF TH E JEWELLERY AND IN SUPPORT HE HAS ALSO REFEREED TO JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT. ON THE CONTRARY, WE FIND THAT HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RATAN LAL VYAPARI LAL JAIN, 339 ITR 351 (GUJ.), WHILE INTERPRETING THE SAME CBDT NO.1916 (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVE D AND HELD AS UNDER:- 10. THOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1 916, DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES FOR SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY AND ORNAMENTS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, TH E SAME TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE QUANTITY OF JEWELLERY W HICH WOULD GENERALLY BE HELD BY FAMILY MEMBERS OF AN ASSESSEE BELONGING TO AN ORDINARY HINDU HOUSEHOLD. THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING THE S AID CIRCULAR AND GIVING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN F OR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE IN RESPECT OF THE JEWELLERY B EING HELD BY THE FAMILY IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE GENERA L PRACTICE IN HINDU FAMILIES WHEREBY JEWELLERY IS GIF TED BY THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AT THE TIME OF SOCIAL FUN CTIONS, VIZ. MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAYS, MARRIAGE ANNIVERSARY AND OTHER FESTIVALS. THESE GIFTS ARE CUSTOMARY AND CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN A SOCIETY CANNOT BE IGNORED. THUS ALT HOUGH THE CIRCULAR HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF NON - SEIZURE OF JEWELLERY DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, T HE BASIS FOR THE SAME RECOGNIZES CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN HINDU SOCIETY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, UNLESS THE REVENUE SH OWS ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, IT CAN SAFELY BE PRESUMED THAT THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE JEWELLERY STATED IN THE CIRCULAR STANDS EXPLAINED. THUS, THE APPROACH ADOPT ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF JEWELLERY SPECIFIED UNDER THE SAID CIRCULAR TO BE A REASONABL E QUANTITY, CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 9 IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMM ITTED ANY LEGAL ERROR SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW. 15. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID JUDGEMENT O N THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND LOOKING TO THE ASSESS EES FAMILY CONSISTING OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF, HIS WIFE, HI S MOTHER, ONE MAJOR UNMARRIED DAUGHTER, ONE MINOR DAUGHTER AN D ONE MINOR SON AND THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING OWNE R AND DIRECTOR OF VARIOUS COMPANIES THEN IT HAS TO BE PRE SUMED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY WOULD BE AVAILABLE . IF THE AVAILABILITY OF JEWELLERY ESPECIALLY IN THE CONCEPT OF INDIAN TRADITION AND GENERAL PRACTICE IN HINDU FAMILIES WH EREBY JEWELLERY IS GIFTED BY THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS AT THE TIME OF SOCIAL FUNCTIONS, VIZ. MARRIAGES, BIRTHDAYS, MARRIA GE ANNIVERSARY AND OTHER FESTIVALS, SUCH GIFTS IN THE FORM OF JEWELLERY ARE CUSTOMARY AND SUCH PRACTICE PREVAILIN G IN OUR SOCIETY CANNOT BE IGNORED. IT WAS FOR THIS PREVALEN T NORM AND PRACTICE IN THE INDIAN FAMILIES WHERE JEWELLERI ES ARE GIFTED AT TIME OF MARRIAGE AND BIRTH OF CHILDREN AN D THE MARRIED LADIES RECEIVING STRIDHAN FROM BOTH SIDE OF THE FAMILY, IT IS PRESUMED THAT FAMILY HAVING CERTAIN S TATUS WILL HAVE SOME JEWELLERY. THAT IS WHY, CBDT VIDE IT AFOR ESAID INSTRUCTION, HAS LAID DOWN A CRITERIA OF AVAILABILI TY OF JEWELLERY WITH VARIOUS CATEGORY OF FAMILY MEMBERS. HERE IN THIS CASE TOTAL JEWELLERY WEIGHING OF 1236.24 GRAMS WAS FOUND AND IF ONE GOES BY THE QUANTITY LAID/ PRESCRI BED PER CATEGORY OF FAMILY MEMBERS BY THE CBDT INSTRUCTION, THEN IT WORKS OUT TO 1700 GRAMS, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE TO TAL JEWELLERY FOUND. WE THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOLD THAT THE JEW ELLERY OF 1236.24 CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THIS JUDG MENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED B Y THIS BENCH IN CATENA OF CASES. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THE JE WELLERY TREATED TO UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF RS. 10,52,124/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 13. THUS, THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED IN LIGHT OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR AND SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 10 14. LASTLY, IN SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.14 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE ORDER, WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH, ALBEIT IT IS BASED ON STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.11.2013 U/S. 131 WHICH WAS DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ADHOC SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THERE IS NO SUCH INCOME OF RS.14 LAKHS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NO RECORD OR EVIDENCE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD ANY KIND OF UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF RS.14 LAKHS. HE HAS MAINLY MADE AN ADHOC SURRENDER EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE OR MATERIAL. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. C OUNSEL THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, SUCH ADHO C SURRENDER CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF ADDITION. APART FR OM THAT WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH CHANDRA (SUPRA), T HE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IF THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4), THEN NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL READS AS UNDER:- 2.8. THESE FACTUAL FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE GROUNDS ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS AGITA TED THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) DESPITE THE ASS ESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE STATEMEN T RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. IT IS CLE AR THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 11 STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LAKH AGAINST UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN STOCK AND RS. 23.20 LACS AGAINST THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIO N, WHICH MEANS, HE RETRACTED THE SAID SURRENDER IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME FILED. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BES T INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARJEEV AG GARWAL (SUPRA) HAVE IN THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE STATEMENT REC ORDED UNDER SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS ON A STANDALON E BASIS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING OR CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. T HUS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUP RA) AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HA RJEEV AGGARWAL (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS WELL REASONED AND NO INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED, ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE DISMISSE D. 15. HERE IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH SURR ENDER IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH U/S 13 2(4) ALBEIT IT WAS U/S 131, BUT EVEN DURING EXTENSIVE SEARCH NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED ANY KIND OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM BUSINESS. SECONDLY, THER E IS NO BASIS OF RS.14 LAKHS WHICH IS JUST AN ADHOC ESTIMAT E. THUS, WE HOLD THAT THIS ADDITION IS NOT BASED ON ANY MATE RIAL OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE MERELY ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED. THIS HAS BEE N HELD SO BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARJEEV AGRAWAL ITA NO.8/2004 ALSO, WHICH HAS BEEN REFERRED AND RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E AFORESAID ITA NO.3734/DEL/2017 12 CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.14 LAKHS IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/ - [ O. P. KANT ] [ AMIT SHUKLA ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH MARCH, 2020 SHEKHAR, SR. PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR