DCIT Central-2, Bhopal V. Shri Harish Hariramani, Bhopal

ITSSA 214/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0179 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S MANTRI
• Assessee Lawyers: NISHA LAHOT
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Source of fund; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Retraction; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 143(2); 64; 43; 48; 13; 22; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HONBLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HONBLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DCIT(CENTRAL)-II BHOPAL : APPELLANT V/S M/S. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE 61B, KASTURBA NAGAR, BHOPAL PAN NO.AAGPH6331R : RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.212/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DCIT(CENTRAL)-II BHOPAL : APPELLANT V/S M/S. AADITYA FOOD PRODUCTS 61B, KASTURBA NAGAR, BHOPAL PAN NO.AANFA4951D : RESPONDENT RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 2 IT(SS)A NO.213/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DCIT(CENTRAL)-II BHOPAL : APPELLANT V/S SMT. SEEMA HARIRAMANI E-7/653, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL PAN NO.AAUPH8769H : RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.214/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DCIT(CENTRAL)-II BHOPAL : APPELLANT V/S SHRI HARISH HARIRAMANI C/O MADHU ENTERPRISES, 61B, KASTURBA NAGAR, BHOPAL PAN NO.AAGPH6334L : RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO.216/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DCIT(CENTRAL)-II BHOPAL : APPELLANT V/S SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 3 C/O TOP-N-TOWN, 11, NEW MARKET, BHOPAL PAN NO.AAGPH6331R : RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI S.S. MANTRI, CIT - DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL , SHRI VIJAY BANSAL & MISS NISHA LAHOTI, ARS DATE OF HEARING 28 .0 5 .2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.07 . 202 1 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE(S) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 (IN SHORT LD. CIT], BHOPAL DATED 04.07.2019 AND 31.08.2020 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 26.12 .2018, 29.12.2018, 21.12.2018 FRAMED BY ACIT-(CENTRAL)-II, BHOPAL. 2. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND ALL THE ASSESSEES RELATE TO SAME GROUP, AT THE REQUEST OF ALL THE PARTIES THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE B EING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 4 AND BREVITY. FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ITA NO.211,212,213 & 214,/IND/2019 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00,000/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED IN THE STATE MENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ITA NO.216/IND/2019 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,00,000/- MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED IN THE STATE MENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS WE OBSERVE THA T THE COMMON GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED INCOME ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE AC T. AS AGREED BY ALL THE PARTIES WE WILL ADJUDICATE THIS COMMON ISSU E ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE NAMELY RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR DECISION SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS ON THE REMAINING APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE(S). RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 5 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 30.08.2016 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF VARIOUS CONCERNS AND BUSIN ESS ASSOCIATES OF M/S. RAMANI GROUP AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENTIAL PR EMISES OF THE DIRECTORS/PARTNERS/ASSOCIATES. M/S. RAMANI GROUP IS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES INCLUDING MANUFACTURING AND DIST RIBUTING OF ICE CREAM, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPER AND BUILDER. D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENT OF MR. ARUN HARIRAMANI WAS REC ORDED ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, ON 03.09.2016 AND WAS REQUIR ED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION/CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS & DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH O N VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE GROUP. IN REPLY AND AFTER DISCUSSIN G WITH OTHER DIRECTORS/PROMOTERS AND WITH THEIR CONSENT, HE ADMI TTED TOTAL UNDISCLOSED & ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25,00,00,000/ -. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE WILL GIVE THE BREAKUP OF THE SURREND ER INCOME ON A NEAR DATE. THEREAFTER ON 27.10.2016 DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI , WHO IS ALSO SAID TO BE ONE OF THE KEY PERSON OF THE GROUP, WAS RECORDED ON OATH ON 27.10.2016 AND HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 6 INCOME OF RS.25,00,00,000/- AND ALSO SUBMITTED BIFU RCATION OF RS.25,00,00,000/- UNDER THE NAME OF 17 ASSESSEES. I N THIS STATEMENT MR. VIJAY HARIRAMANI HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED NOR ANY SOURCE OF SUCH SURRENDERED INCOME NOR ANY SPECIFIC ASSET/INVESTIGATION/EXPENDITURE WERE MADE. THE BIFU RCATION OF SURRENDERED AMOUNT WAS MORE IN THE NATURE OF TENTATIVE/ESTIMATED/ PROJECTED BIFURCATION. 5. SUBSEQUENTLY, AN APPLICATION WAS FILED BEFORE IN COME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY SOME OF THE CONCERNS/INDIV IDUALS OF THE M/S. RAMANI GROUP( NOT INCLUDING THE ASSESSEES IN T HE INSTANT APPEAL). THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSE D AN ORDER ON 24.12.2018 U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT AND ACCEPTED T HE SURRENDERED INCOME AT RS.24,27,91,005/- AND TAXES DUE ALREADY S TAND PAID. IN RESPECT OF REMAINING ASSESSEES NO UNDISCLOSED INCOM E WAS OFFERED TO TAX ON THE GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THEIR CASE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 6. SUBSEQUENTLY, LD. AO ISSUED AND SERVED NOTICE U/ S 153A OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2016-17 OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTICES U/S RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 7 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y.2017-18. THE INS TANT APPEAL RELATES TO A.Y.2017-18. THIS WAS THE YEAR DURING WH ICH SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT. RETURN WAS FILED ON 04.11.2017 DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS.7,23,390/-. NECESSARY INFORMATION CALLED WAS DUL Y SUPPLIED. LD. AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SURRE NDER OF RS.25,00,00,000/- MADE FOR BY THE GROUP FOR VARIOUS CONCERNS/INDIVIDUAL AND IN THE BREAKUP OF THE SURRE NDER AMOUNT RS.2,00,00,000/- WAS STATED TO BE SURRENDERED IN TH E CONCERNS M/S. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ALLEGED SURRENDER OF RS.25,00,00,000/- WAS AN ESTIM ATED/PROJECTED FIGURE AND AFTER ANALYZING THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.24 ,27,91,005/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE APPLICATION MADE BEFORE T HE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED VID E ORDER DATED 24.12.2018. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIN CE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DURING SEARCH WAS FOUND WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM NAMELY RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE ADDITION AL INCOME OF RS.2,00,00,000/- WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. HOWEVER, LD. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE KEY PERSON OF THE RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 8 M/S. RAMANI GROUP SPECIFICALLY STATED THE SURRENDER OF RS.2,00,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE S TATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE SAID AMOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE, ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,00,00,000/- AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.2,07 ,23,390/-. 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED AS THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AF TER APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED SURRENDER OF RS.25,00,00, 000 BY THE KEY PERSON OF THE M/S. RAMANI GROUP WAS IN THE NATURE OF TENTATIVE /ESTIMATED SURRENDER AND M/S. M/S. RAMANI GROUP HAS OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.24,27,91,005/- TO TAX AND HAS FILED THE APPLICATION BEFORE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE NAMES OF THOSE ASSESSEES FOR WHICH THE INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL WERE RELATED AND THUS HONOURED THE SURRENDER. THE LD. CIT(A) FUR THER REFERRING TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE STATING THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTAINING TO ASSES SEE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOR ANY REFERENCE WAS M ADE TO ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION , IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ADDITION FOR RS.2 CR. WAS NOT RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 9 CALLED FOR, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO CIRCULAR NO.286/2/2003/IT(INVESTIGATION) DATED 10.03.2003 AN D CIRCULAR NO.286/98/2013-IT(INVESTIGATION-II) DATED 18 TH DECEMBER, 2014. 8. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LD.AO AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE THE SURRENDER ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ON 03.09.2016 AND AGAIN CONFIRMED THE S AME SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN ANOTHER STATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.07.2016. COMPLETE BIFURCATION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,00,00,0 00/- GIVEN IN THIS DECLARATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY RET RACTION FROM SURRENDER SO MADE IN THE VARIOUS CONCERNS/INDIVIDUA LS. LD. DR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING FINDING OF LD. AO IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS OF SETTING ASIDE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A): 6.4 THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED C AREFULLY BUT NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR FOLLOWING REASON: - (I) ON PERUSAL OF THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS AS SCAN NED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI ARUN RAMANI WAS RECORDED O N OATH ULS 132(4) OF THE ACT, AT THE HEAD OFFICE OFRICL ON 03109/2016 AS WELL AS DURING THE COURSE OF REVOCATION OF PROHIBITORY ORDER AT THE FACTORY RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 10 PREMISE OF RIEL ON 27/10/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHRI ARUN RAM ANI HIMSELF DECLARED IN HIS OWN HAND WRITING THAT STATEMENT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT FEAR AND WITHOUT COERCION AND HE JS IN SOUND STATE OF MIND. THE STATEMENT WAS FURTHER READ, UNDERSTOOD A ND ACCEPTED BY KEY PERSONS OF THE GROUP I.E. SHRI PRAKASH HARIRA MANI, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI WHICH PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO COERCION AND ASSESSEE WILFULLY OFFERED THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE. II. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO MENTION ETHER THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD TIME TO FILE ITS OBJECTIONS IF ANY, IN CASE OF VOLU NTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME IN FRONT OF DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE NOTICES U/ S 153A HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO AND ASSESSEE IS ONLY RAISING ITS OBJECTION IN THE LAST SUBMISSIO N DATED 17/12/18. (III) THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME IS BASED ON THE VANOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND, SEIZED AND CONFRONTED TO HARIRAMANI BROTHERS, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION FROM V ARIOUS PREMISES. THE DOCUMENTS / FACTS/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS INVOLVED IN BUSINESSES OF THE R AMANI GROUP OF COMPANIES AND FIRMS AND IS EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE SAME WHICH IS ADMITTED AFTER DUE CONSULTATION FROM PA RTNERS. (IV) THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHOULD HAVE RETRACTED BEFORE INITIATING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITH EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE S. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS GIVEN ENOU GH TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY IT AS THE STATEM ENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). IT IS ASSESSEE'S LIABILITY TO EXPLAIN THAT THE STATEMENT ADMITTED DURING SEARCH IS UNTRUE. (V) THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF T HE ACT IS NOT SIMPLY A CONFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONTEXT WITH ISSUE ENUMERATED DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. IT IS P IECE OF EVIDENCES IN TERMS OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. IT IS NOT RETRACTIO N FROM THE COMMITMENT BUT IT IS DEVIATION AND AVOIDANCE OF EVID ENCE GATHERED BY THE DEPARTMENT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON -.E-. THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAKESH MAHAJA N VS. CIT CITED AT 642 OF 2007 (TAXPERT) AND 214 CTR 218 WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT 'IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ADMISSIONS CONST ITUTE BEST PRICE OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE ADMISSION ARE SELF-HARMING STATEMEN TS MADE BY THE MAKER BELIEVING IT TO BE BASED ON TRUTH. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT NO ONE WILL TELL A LIE ESPECIALLY HARMING ONE'S OWN INTEREST UNLESS SUCH A RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 11 STATEMENT IS TRUE.' THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) IS AN EV IDENCE TO BE USED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS ITSELF EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION. THE STATEMENT RE CORDED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IS ASSESSEES CONFESSION TO DISCREPANCIES AND IRREGULARITIES, HENCE IF ANY RETRACTION IS MADE IT IS ASSESSEE'S LIABILITY TO DISCHARGE ONUS. SECTION 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT IS MATERIAL IN THIS RESPECT WHICH STIPULATES THAT WHEN THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ANY PE RSON IS OWNER OF ANYTHING OF WHICH HE IS SHOWN TO BE IN POSSESSION, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER IS ON THE PERSON W HO AFFIRMS THAT HE IS NOT THE OWNER. IN OTHER WORDS, IT FOLLOWS FROM THE WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NORMALLY, UNLESS CONTRARY IS ESTABLISHED, TITLE ALWAYS FOLLOWS POSSESSION. IT IS EVIDENT FROM ABOVE DISCUSSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DISCHARGE ONUS FOR RETRACTION O F SURRENDERED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. RETRACTION WI THOUT HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE S IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE QUESTION OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF A STATEMENT REC ORDED ULS.I32 (4) OF THE ACT IS NO MORE RES INTEGRA. WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAD MADE A STATEMENT OF FACTS, HE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE IFIT I S TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT STATEMENT. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE AO'S APPROACH MAY BE APPRECIATED THAT HE HAD NOT MADE AN Y ENHANCEMENT OR SUBSTITUTION IN THE AMOUNTS AS OFFER ED/DISCLOSED IN THE SAID STATEMENT. IT WAS A STATEMENT PERTAINING TO CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE IN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSE E. THOSE FACTS WERE DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THEREUPON THOSE WERE ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THOSE FACTS WER E OF SUCH NATURE THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. AFFIRMATION OF FACTS AT BEST CAN ONLY BE DONE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN VOLITION. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO CORRECT THE SAID STATEMENT, THEN IT WAS OPEN FOR IT TO -= SHOW THE EVIDENCES TO RETRACT THOSE FACTS. BUT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED THOUGH AN ANOTHE R CHANCE WAS GRANTED WHILE EXPLAINING THE ENTIRE ISSUES AT SEARC H PROCEEDING STAGE WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL IN ITS POSSESSION. IT IS HERE TO CLARIFY THAT THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES THE POWER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR RECORDING A STATEMEN T ON THE DAY OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN THIS CONTEXT, CASE LAW CITED F EW DECISIONS RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 12 WHEREIN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF RETRACTION OF A S TATEMENT OR THE LEGAL SANCTITY OF STATEMENT IN THE EYES OF INCOME-T AX LAWS. IT IS TO CLARIFY THAT THEN IS A DIFFERENCE IN A STATEMENT RE CORDED UNDER THE PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT U/S. 132 OF THE ACT OF THE ACT. THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHEREVER THOUGHT FIT AND NECESSARY HAS CONFERR ED SUCH POWERS TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH. THOSE POWERS ARE THERE FORE HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED. IN THIS CONTEXT SECTION 132(4) O F THE ACT ENABLES AN AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO EXAMINE A PERSON ON OATH. SU CH A SWORN STATEMENT _ MADE UJS.132 (4) OF THE ACT, THUS CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE UNDER THE ACT. A STATEMENT RECORDED UJS. 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS A FAR REACHING CONSEQUELL(;E BECAUSE IF IT IS P ROVED TO BE FALSE WHICH THE ASSESSEE ONLY KNOWS OR BELIEVES TO BE FALSE OR THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE, IT IS ASSE SSEE'S LIABILITY TO EXPLAIN AND PROVE IT. IF ANY COERCION OR FORCE ARE N OT PROVED, AND ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARY DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME A ND HAS-NOT MADE RETRACTION WITHIN THREE MONTH OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED, ONUS LIES WITH THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE DECLARATION IS MADE OUT OF MISCONCEPTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SUCH EFFOR TS. THE LEARNED AHMADABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. BHOGILAL MOO LCHAND 96 LTD 344 HELD THAT STATEMENT GIVEN UNDER SECTION 132(4) IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AND PERSON CAN RETRACT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, TIME GAP BETWEEN STATEMENT AND RETRACTION OF STATEMENT IS ONE OF THE IMPORTANT POINTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO DECIDE A S TO WHETHER THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF EITHER FACT OR LAW. HOWEVER WHEN ASSESSEE RETRACTED STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) AFTER THREE AND A HALF MONTHS OF DISCLOSURE AN D THERE WAS NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT RETRACTION THEN AO WA S JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING ASSESSEE'S RETRACTION THE DECISION HELD I N THE CASE OF CARPENTERS CLASSICS (EXIM) (P) LTD. V S DCLT ( ITA T, BANG) 108 LTD 142 SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE .IT IS HELD THA T : WHEN STATEMENT WAS MADE VOLUNTARY AND WAS NOT ALLEGE D TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED UNDER THREAT OR COERCION, ONUS WAS ON ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SAID DECLARATION WAS MADE UNDER ANY MISCONC EPTION OF FACTS ;;- SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY STEPS TO RECTIFY ITS DECLARATION BEFORE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WHOM SUCH DECLA RATION WAS MADE, THERE WAS NO VALID REASON FOR RETRACTION OF S AME AFTER A GAP OF ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS.' THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THOUGHTF ULLY CONSIDERED AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN HIS RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 13 EXPLANATION. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT ADMISSIONS CON STITUTE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE ADMISSIONS ARE SELF-HARMING STA TEMENT MADE BY THE MAKER BELIEVING IT TO BE BASED ON TRUTH. IT I S WELL KNOWN THAT NO ONE WILL TELL A LIE ESPECIALLY HARMING ONES OWN INTEREST UNLESS SUCH A STATEMENT IS TRUE. SECTION 17 OF THE 1872 AC T DEFINES ADMISSION TO BE A STATEMENT, ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, WH ICH SUGGESTS AN INFERENCE AS TO ANY FACT IN ISSUE OR RELEVANT FA CT WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY A PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS OR ITS AGENT AND OTH ERS AS PER DETAILS GIVEN IN SECTION 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23 OF TH E 1872 ACT. IF AD ADMISSION HAS BEEN MADE BY A PARTY TO PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 17 AND 18 OF THE 1872 ACT, SUGGESTING AN INFERENCE T HAT THE INCOME WAS UNEXPLAINED THEN SUCH AN ADMISSION IS AN ADMISS IBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ADMISSIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN REGARDED AS SUBST ANTIVE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT SUSTAINS THEIR VERACITY FROM THE FACT THAT MAKER HAS SAID SOMETHING AGAINST ITS OWN INTEREST. 9. LD. DR ALSO REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON 04.01.2021 (PAGE NO.1 TO 26) WHICH CONTAINS THE COPY OF APPLIC ATION MADE BY THE M/S. RAMANI GROUP BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE NO ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WITHOUT HAVING REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S. RAMANI GROUP DULY HONOU RED THE RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 14 SURRENDER OF RS.25,00,00,000/- MADE DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH BUT OFFERED IT ONLY NAME OF THOSE CONCERNS/ASSESSEE S FOR WHICH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. HON'BLE INCOME TA X SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS DULY ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF RS.24 ,27,91,005/- AND THE TAX PAID THEREON. COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON' BLE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON 10.02.2021. FURTHER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE FERRED TO FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 18.12.2020: A. STATEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE ARE VAGUE, BALD AND ADHOC WITHOUT HAVING ANY NEXUS TO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH 1. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF SHRI AR UN HARIRAMANI (ASSESSEE) WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4) AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF RAMANI ICE-CREAM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH COMMENCED O N 03.09.2016 AND WAS CONCLUDED ON 04.09.2016. VARIOUS QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER RELATING TO THE DOCUMENTS SE IZED BOTH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES. SHRI ARUN HARIRA MANI (ASSESSEE) EXPLAINED THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 25, SHRI ARUN HARIRA MANI MADE A LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 25 CRORE S FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCER NS, COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS COMPRISED IN THE GROUP. IT WAS AL SO STATED THAT BY HIM THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE ASSESSEE-WISE AND ASSESSMENT YEARWISE BREAKUP OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED FOR HIMSELF AND O N BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS AND PARTNER SHIP FIRMS COMPRISED IN THE GROUP. 2. REFERENCE MAY PLEASE BE MADE TO THE REPLY OF SHRI A RUN HARIRAMANI (ASSESSEE) IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 25 AT PB 3 REPRODUCED AS UNDER RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 15 ........ , BHAGIDAR, DIRECTORS PROPRIETOR !' ! !' ! !' ! !' ! , GROUP # # # # FIRMS COMPANIES PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM (ISHAAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ) ) ) ) RS. 25 ( ( ( ( RS. TWENTY FIVE CRORES) KI $ $ $ $ % & ' % & ' % & ' % & ' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) BREAKUP ' ' ' ' *+% ,-. *+% ,-. *+% ,-. *+% ,-. .... 3. FROM THE ABOVE FOLLOWING IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR A. DISCLOSURE MADE ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS COMPRISED IN THE GROUP B. LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 25 CRORES WHICH IS VAGUE, BALD AND ADHOC C. NO REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT/INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE D. HE SHALL PROVIDE ASSESSEE-WISE AND ASSESSMENT YEAR- WISE BREAKUP FOR THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR H IMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, C OMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS COMPRISED IN THE GROUP E. DISCLOSURE MADE DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY SPECIFIC ASS ESSMENT YEAR F. DISCLOSURE MADE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY SHRI PRAKASH HA RIRAMANI, SHRI HARISH HARIRAMANI AND SHRI KISHORE HARIRAMANI ON 04.09.2016 AS TENTATIVE AND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY BREAKUP OF R S. 25 CRORES AS TO EACH ASSESSEE, EACH YEAR AND RESPECTIVE HEAD OF INC OME ANY OF THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS/GROUP CONCERNS 4. THUS, DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI (ASSESSEE) IS VAGUE, BALD AND ADHOC WITHOUT REFEREN CE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/SEIZED DOCUMENT, MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS. 5. IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF SHRI V IJAY HARIRAMANI WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4) AT HIS RESIDENCE ON 27.10.2 016. IN QUESTION NUMBER 2, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER THAT SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNERS, PROPRIETORS AND DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES COULD NO T EXPLAIN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THIS IS AN INCORRECT FACT. THE CORRECT FACTS ARE ON REFERENCE TO THE STATEME NT OF SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI RECORDED U/S 132(4) AT THE FACTORY PREMI SE ON 03.09.2016, RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 16 FROM QUESTION NO. 1 TO 24 AUTHORIZED OFFICER ENQUIR ED ABOUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY HIM. 1. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED IN STATING THA T SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 6. THE FACT THAT DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY ONE PERSON ON BEHALF OF OTHERS IS CORROBORATED FROM THE QUESTION NUMBER 2 RAISED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO SHRI VIJAY HARI RAMANI. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THIS QUESTION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER /01)0 /01)0 /01)0 /01)0 GROUP # # # # FIRMS, COMPANIES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS (M/S ISHAAN BUILDERS & DEVE LOPERS KO ) ) ) ) RS 25.00 2340 256 # 2340 256 # 2340 256 # 2340 256 # $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ FIRMS, COMPANIES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS (M/S ISHAAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS KO 72 6 # 1 )% & 72 6 # 1 )% & 72 6 # 1 )% & 72 6 # 1 )% & ' ' ' ' .. 2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IN THE QUESTION ITSELF HAS S TATED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI ON BEHA LF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, COMPANIES AND PROPRIETO RSHIP CONCERNS. 7. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION NUMBER 2 RAISED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT HIS RESIDENCE, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI STATED THAT .......IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH A LUMP SUM DISCLOSU RE OF THE INCOME OF THE GROUP RS. 25.00 CRORES (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE CRORES) AS A WHOLE WAS HOWEVER MADE...............HOWEVER, SUBJECT TO ROUG H ANALYSIS AND MEMORY, BASED ON SEIZED RECORDS I HEREWITH ACCEPT A ND I AM GIVING A CHART THEREIN TENTATIVE FIGURES OF THE INCOME OF TH E VARIOUS ASSESSEE IN THE GROUP WHICH MAY CONSTITUTE A TENTATIVE BREAK UP OF THE DISCLOSED INCOME. THE TENTATIVE FIGURES OF INCOME ARE SUBJECT ED TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTION/REVISION WITH RESPECT TO IN DIVIDUAL ASSESSEE, QUANTUM OF INCOME..... [AO PAGE 10] 8. FROM THE ABOVE FOLLOWING IS EVIDENTLY MADE OUT A. LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF INCOME FOR GROUP THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 DEFINES THE TERM PERSON U/S 2(31). THIS DEFINITIO N DOES NOT MENTION ANY TAXABLE ENTITY AS GROUP. THUS, THERE IS NOTHING A S INCOME FOR GROUP WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX. B. BREAKUP OF THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IS SUBJECT TO ROUGH ANALYSIS, MEMORY AND SEIZED RECORDS C. TENTATIVE FIGURES OF THE VARIOUS ASSESSES OF THE GR OUP RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 17 D. TENTATIVE FIGURES ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRE CTION/REVISION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE AND THE QUANTUM OF I NCOME 9. THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH TENTATIVE FI GURES AND ROUGH ANALYSIS AND WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORR ECTION/REVISION HAS NO LEGAL SANCTITY AND FACTUAL BASIS. 10. STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI WAS RECORDED U /S 132(4) ON 30.08.2016 AT HIS RESIDENCE E-1/193, ARERA COLON Y, BHOPAL. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 31 HE HAS STATED THAT . ,) ,) ,) ,) SEARCH & SEIZURE # 0 89 -: # 0 89 -: # 0 89 -: # 0 89 -: 8 0,).( ; <'-' 0=% %>1 8 0,).( ; <'-' 0=% %>1 8 0,).( ; <'-' 0=% %>1 8 0,).( ; <'-' 0=% %>1 RICL, ' :?,@ ' :?,@ ' :?,@ ' :?,@ , AB0 AB0 AB0 AB0 , CB CB CB CB ? ? ? ? , B B B B , DEB DEB DEB DEB , +B +B +B +B , , , , , 40 3 40 3 40 3 40 3 25) 2501 F)! 9. 2501 F)! 9. 2501 F)! 9. 2501 F)! 9. 03 03 03 03 HEAD WISE) )!G 9 ) )!G 9 ) )!G 9 ) )!G 9 ) 2448 B( B( B( B(H- !I ,- H- !I ,- H- !I ,- H- !I ,- 11. FROM THE ABOVE THE REPLY OF SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI FOLLOWING IS EVIDENTLY MADE OUT- A. DISCLOSURE MADE ON BEHALF OF OTHERS NAMELY RICL, AA DITYA FOODS, TRINITY ORGANIZATION, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, PARTNERS, DIRECTORS, PROPRIETORS AND GROUP. B. LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 25 CRORES WHICH IS VAGUE, BALD AND ADHOC C. NO REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT/INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE D. HE SHALL PROVIDE ASSESSEE-WISE, HEAD-WISE AND ASSES SMENT YEAR- WISE BREAKUP FOR THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON BEHALF OF OTHER NAMELY RICL, AADITYA FOODS, TRINITY ORGANIZAT ION, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, PARTNERS, DIRECTORS, PROPRIETORS AND GROUP E. DISCLOSURE MADE DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY SPECIFIC ASS ESSMENT YEAR 12. SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED STATEMENTS IS AS UND ER PARTICULARS STATEMENT OF SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI (ASSESSEE) STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 18 DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 25 CRORES STATEMENT RECORDED ON 03.09.2016 AT THE FACTORY PREMISE E- 1/200, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL [PB 102-103] MADE A LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, COMPANIES AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS COMPRISED IN THE GROUP. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY HIM THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE ASSESSEE- WISE AND YEAR WISE BREAKUP OF THE AMOUNT SO DISCLOSED. STATEMENT RECORDED ON 27.10.2016 AT HIS RESIDENCE E-1/95- 96, ARERA COLONY, BHO PAL [AO PAGE 10] TENTATIVE FIGURES FOR BREAKUP OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WERE BASED ON ROUGH ANALYSIS AND MEMORY, BASED ON SEIZED RECORDS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTION/REV ISION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE AND QUANTUM OF INCOME STATEMENT RECORD ED ON 03.09.2016 AT HIS RESIDENCE E- 1/193, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL [ ] HE STATED THAT THE GROUP HAS DECIDED TO MAKE A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 25 CRORES TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR WHICH DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED LATER ON, WITH ASSESSEE- WISE AND YEAR-WISE BREAKUP. FROM THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS CLEAR THAT A. SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI MADE A LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE O F RS. 25 CRORES FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND COMPANIES COMPRISED IN THE GROUP. B. SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI GAVE A TENTATIVE BREAKUP OF THE DISCLOSURE MENTIONED IN POINT (A) ABOVE BASED ON MEMORY, ROUGH ANALYSIS, SEIZED RECORDS WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTIO N/REVISION WITH RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE AND QUANTUM OF INCOM E. C. SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI STATED THAT THE GROUP HAS DECIDED TO MAKE A LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF RS. 25 CRORES FOR WHICH HE AD-WISE, ASSESSEE- WISE AND YEAR-WISE DETAILS SHALL BE SUBMITTED LATER ON. 13. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, NOTHING WAS FOUND TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN THE REPORTED SOURCES. THE LOOSE PAPERS, HARD DISKS, MOBILE DATA AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY EXPLAINED TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. LD. AO MA DE AN ALLEGATION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OTHER THAN THE REPORTED SOURCES OF INCOME. N EITHER COULD LD. AO BRING ON RECORD ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF THE ASSESS EE HAVING EARNED ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 19 14. WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. AO DID NOT MA KE REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BUT THE ADDITION WAS MAD E BY REFERRING TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SE ARCH OPERATIONS. THERE IS NO NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE DECLARATION MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS . NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COULD BE CORRELATED TO THE ALLEGED SUR RENDER OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 15. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT MERE ADMISSION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. A. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. V. STATE OF KERA LA [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC): PARA 4 [CLPB 01 ] B. SATINDER KUMAR (HUF) V. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 64 (HON BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH): IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS TRUE THAT AN ADMISSION MADE BY AN ASSESSEE CONSTITUTES A RELEVANT PIECE OF EVIDENC E BUT IF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IN MAKING THE ADMISSION HE HAD PROCEE DED ON A MISTAKEN UNDERSTANDING OR ON MISCONCEPTION OF FACTS OR ON UN TRUE FACTS SUCH AN ADMISSION CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FIRST CONSI DERING THE AFORESAID CONTENTION. C. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ULTIMATE BUILDERS ITA NO. 134/IND/2019 ORDER DTD 09.08.2 019 PARA 21, 25, 26, 27 [CLPB 34]39-40 ] WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE DECISION, HONBLE ITAT BENCH REFERRED TO ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUDEEP MAHESHWARI ITA N O. 524/IND/2013 ORDER DTD 13.02.2019. FOR RELEVANT PORTION REFER PA RA 6 [CLPB 49 ] 16. THE DECLARATION WAS NOT MADE WITH REFERENCE TO ANY SPECIFIC INCRIMINATING PAPER/PAPERS OR DOCUMENTS AND WAS NEI THER WITH REFERENCE TO ANY UNDISCLOSED ASSET OR INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS A VAGUE DECLARATION MADE UNDER DURESS. IN THIS RESPECT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF I. CIT V. SHRI RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT [2000] 163 ITR 4 03 (AP) II. CIT V. NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL [2014] 369 ITR 171 (AP) III. R.R. GAVIT V. SMT. SHERBANOO HASAN DAYA [1986] 161 ITR 793 (BOM) 17. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT CHARGE HAS TO BE CLEAR AND IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE. RELIANCE IS PLAC ED ON THE DECISION OF RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 20 HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP KUMAR AND C OMPANY & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3327 OF 2007 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30.07 .2018 PARA 43 [CLPB ] HONBLE MUMBAI BENCH (SB) OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF GT C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2017] 80 TAXMANN.COM 284 ORDER DTD ON 07.03.20 17 PARA 46 [CLPB ] 18. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, APPLICABLE LAW AND THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, ADDITI ON OF RS. 1.50 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE, BALD AN D ADHOC STATEMENTS OF SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI AND SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI, MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE BREAK UP GIV EN WAS TENTATIVE SUBJECT TO CORRECTION/REVISION/MODIFICATION. B. NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, ADDITIO N MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATE MENT AND NO NEXUS WITH THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL 1. ASSESSEE CHALLENGES THE VALIDITY OF ADDITION BEING MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS. 2. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, IN THE STATEMENT OF S HRI ARUN HARIRAMANI AT QUESTION NUMBER 25, IT WAS ASKED [A O PAGE 3] JF' EEK $ %7L <( JF' EEK $ %7L <( JF' EEK $ %7L <( JF' EEK $ %7L <( ? ALL THE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO QUESTION NO. 25 RAISED B Y THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER RELATE TO THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OP ERATIONS. SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI HAS DULY EXPLAINED THESE DOCUMENTS. FROM QUESTION NO. 25, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO REFERENCE TO ANY SEIZED DOCUMENT/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN MADE BY TH E AUTHORIZED OFFICER. [PB 88-101] IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 25, SHRI ARUN HARIRAMAN I REPLIED (RELEVANT EXTRACT) [AO PAGE 4] ..... 10 '% H%- 10 '% H%- 10 '% H%- 10 '% H%- < '<,' 9$ < '<,' 9$ < '<,' 9$ < '<,' 9$M7 0 # 9 C !$ M7 0 #9 C !$ M7 0 #9 C !$ M7 0 #9 C !$ 0 '. 0 '. 0 '. 0 '. ..... RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 21 FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/SEIZED DOCUMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF RS. 25 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE BY SH RI ARUN HARIRAMANI FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, PARTNERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS AND COMPANIES COM PRISED IN THE GROUP. THUS THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL/DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND THE ADDITION MADE. 3. IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF SHRI V IJAY HARIRAMANI WAS RECORDED AT HIS RESIDENCE ON 27.10.2016. IN THI S STATEMENT HE GAVE TENTATIVE BREAKUP FOR THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI A RUN HARIRAMANI. [AO PAGE 10] FROM THE REPLY OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI, IT IS EVID ENTLY CLEAR THAT NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/SEIZED DOCU MENTS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TENTATIVE BREAKUP HAS BEEN GI VEN. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE BREAK UP GIVEN IS A. SUBJECT TO ROUGH ANALYSIS AND MEMORY, BASED ON SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS B. BREAKUP IS TENTATIVE C. SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTION/REVISION WITH RE SPECT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE, QUANTUM OF INCOME 4. IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI IN RESP ONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 31 HE HAS STATED AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/SEIZED DOCU MENTS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS.25 CRORES HAS BEEN MADE. 5. FROM ALL THE THREE STATEMENTS REFERRED ABOVE AT POI NT NO. 2 TO 4, IT IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE I N THE IMPUGNED YEAR. 6. NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN MADE WHICH HAS A DIRE CT NEXUS WITH THE ADDITIONS SO MADE. 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE SIX YEARS I.E . AY 2012-13 TO 2016-17, INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED SAME AS RETURNED INCOME. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENT/INCRIMINATING MATER IAL HAVE CONSIDERED AND EXPLAINED. FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2 CR . NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN MADE FORMING THE BA SIS OF ADDITION. SUCH RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 22 AN ADDITION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/SEIZED DOCUMENT OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 8. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, STATEMENT OF NONE OF THE PARTNERS WERE RECORDED IN THE CAPACITY AS PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIR M. 9. IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT, ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME , WHICH CAN ULTIMATELY BE ADDED, IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ANY U NRECORDED ASSETS/MATERIAL FOUND OR ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT S FOUND AS REPRESENTING UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED. 10. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE ABSENCE OF INC RIMINATING MATERIAL A. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. SINHGAD TECHNICAL E DUCATION SOCIETY [2017] 84 TAXMANN.COM 290 (SC) PARA 18 [CLPB ] B. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MECHMEN [2015] 60 TAXMANN.COM 484 ORDER PRONOUN CED ON 10.07.2015 PARA 23 [CLPB ] C. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MOHD. ATIQUE IT(SS)A NO. 30/IND/2016 TO 36/IND/2016 O RDER PRONOUNCED ON 16.02.2021 - PARA 19 [CLPB ] D. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SATISH NEEMA IT(SS)A NO. 149/IND /2016, 150/IND/2016 AND 152/IND/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07.02.2020 - PARA 19 [CLPB ] E. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KAMAL KISHORE KOTWANI - IT(SS)A NO. 186 TO 190/IND/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04.07.2018 F. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF INDORE ITAT IN THE CASE OF KAMTA PRASAD DWIVEDI IT(SS)A NO. 182 TO 185/IND/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.09.2018 G. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KABU L CHAWLA 380 ITR 573, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT V. MEETA GU TGUTIA 395 ITR 526 AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS, HAS CONSISTENTLY H ELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEA RCH, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153A IS NOT IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. [CLPB ] IN THE DECISION OF MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA), SLP FILE D BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY GIVING A REASONING REPORTED RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 23 AT [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 468 (SC) SLP DISMISSAL 02.07.2018. [CLPB ] H. IN ADDITION TO THE DECISIONS OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA ) AND MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA), RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON SEVERA L OTHER DECISIONS AS LISTED BELOW (I) PR. CIT V. LATA JAIN, 384 ITR 543. (II) 211 TAXMAN 61 (DEL) CIT V. CHETAN DAS LAXHMAN DAS. (III) 352 ITR 493 (DEL) CIT V. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA. (IV) 380 ITR 571 (DEL) CIT V. KURELE PAPER MILLS (P ) LTD., DT. 6-7-2015. (V) 241 TAXMAN 440 (DEL) CIT V. MGF AUTOMOBILES LTD . (VI) ITA NO. 634/2015 PR. CIT V. SMT. KUSUM GUPTA. (VII) W.P. (C) 8721/2014 & CM NO. 20052/2014 PRAVEE N KUMAR JOLLY. (VIII) IT APPEAL NO. 810/2016 PR. CIT V. MAHESH KUM AR. (IX) IT APPEAL NOS. 61 & 62/2017 PR. CIT V. RAM AVT ARVERMA. (X) 397 ITR 82 PR. CIT V. BEST INFRASTRUCTURE (INDI A) (P) LTD. 11. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT DECISIONS OF HIGHER AU THORITIES CARRY A BINDING FORCE ON THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FOR THE APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF AGRAWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LTD. [2002] 124 TAXMAN 440 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11.07.2 002 PARA 8 12. WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. AO DID NO T MAKE REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BUT THE ADDITION WAS MAD E BY REFERRING TO THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SE ARCH OPERATIONS. THERE IS NO NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND THE DECLARATION MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS . NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COULD BE CORRELATED TO THE ALLEGED SUR RENDER OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 13. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, NOTHING WAS FOUND TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OTHER THAN THE REPORTED SOURCES. THE LOOSE PAPERS, HARD DISKS, MOBILE DATA AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY EXPLAINED TO THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER. THUS, LD. AO MADE AN ALLEGATION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT MATERIAL THAT ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME OTHER THAN THE REPORTED SOURCES OF INCOME. N EITHER COULD LD. AO BRING ON RECORD ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF THE ASSESS EE HAVING EARNED ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 24 14. REFERENCE MAY PLEASE BE MADE TO THE TABLE IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO. 24 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS, TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER A.Y. 2017-18 INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME 7,23,390/ - UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED DURING THE SEARCH STATEMENT U/S 132(4) 2,00,00,000/ TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME 2,07,23,390/ FROM THE ABOVE TABLE IT IS EVIDENTLY CLEAR THAT LD. AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSUR E OF A THIRD PARTY MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATI ONS. 15. IT IS WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT THE STRICT RULE S OF EVIDENCE ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN RELATION TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER THERE IS NOTHING LIKE RES JUDICATA OR ESTOPPEL. IN ORDER TO TAX ANY INCOME UNDER THE INCOME- TAX ACT, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN THAT SUCH INCOM E HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE OR IS DEEMED TO HAVE ACCRUED. INCOME IS NO T EARNED IN AIR OR VACUUM. THE INCOME PRESUPPOSES RECEIPT OR MOVEMENT OF FUNDS, WHICH ARE REVENUE IN NATURE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NORMALLY, THE ONUS IS UPON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ANY INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS DISPUTING THE CLA IM OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS REGARD, A GAINFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF JANKI RAM BAHADUR RAM V. CIT (57 ITR 21 SC). IN THE INSTANT CASE, SEARCH PARTY DID NOT BRING ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO ESTABLISH ASSESSEE IS HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME O THER THE REPORTED SOURCES. NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SUPPORTING THE O FFER MADE BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI INCLUDING FOR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNE RSHIP FIRMS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, PARTNERS AND COMPANIES WER E FOUND IN SEARCH. LD. AO ALSO FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORA TIVE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH ASSESSEE IS HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME O THER THAN THE REPORTED SOURCES. 19. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS A. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN [2015] 53 TAXMANN.COM 173 (RAJ) PARA 10 AND 11 B. NARESH KUMAR VERMA [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 280 (CHAND IGARH - TRIB.) DATED 27.11.2012 PARA 8, 9 AND 10 [CLPB 2 05,206 ] RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 25 C. SUNIL AGGARWAL ITA NO. 224/2003 DATED 02.11.2015 BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PARA 15 [CLPB 224 ] D. HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAKU MAR JETHMAL KOCHAR [2015] 55 TAXMANN.COM 292 (GUJARAT) PARA 6 [CLPB 231 ] 16. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE APPLICABLE LAW, ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 1.50 CRORES IN THE ABSENCE OF REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OUGHT TO BE DELETED. C. ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THIR D PERSON WHICH WAS NEVER RATIFIED/ENDORSED/ACKNOWLEDGED/CONF IRMED BY THE ASSESSEE 1. STATEMENT OF SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI RECORDED DURING T HE SEARCH OPERATIONS AT THE FACTORY PREMISE ON 03.09.2016 A S REPRODUCED AT PARA A POINT NO 2 ABOVE. 2. STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI RECORDED DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT HIS RESIDENCE ON 27.10.2016 AS REP RODUCED AT PARA A POINT NO.6 AND 7 ABOVE. 3. STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI RECORDED DURIN G THE SEARCH OPERATIONS ON 03.09.2016 AS REPRODUCED AT PARA A POINT NO. 10 ABOVE. 4. DISCLOSURE IN ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREE STATEME NTS OF THREE PERSONS IS MADE ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, PARTNERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS AND COMPANIES. TH ESE STATEMENTS WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS/GROUP CONCERNS. THEY HAVE NOT RATIFIED/ENDORSED/ACKNOWLEDGED/CONFIRMED THE DI SCLOSURE AS MADE BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PERSONS. NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE BY USING A DOCUMENT NOT ACTUALLY CONFRONTED TO ASSESSEE. 5. THE FACT THAT DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY ONE PERSON ON BEHALF OF OTHERS IS CORROBORATED FROM THE QUESTION NUMBER 2 RAISED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO SHRI VIJAY HARI RAMANI. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THIS QUESTION IS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 6. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IN THE QUESTION ITSELF HAS S TATED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI ON BEHA LF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, COMPANIES AND PROPRIETO RSHIP CONCERNS. NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF T HIRD PARTY. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 26 7. THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WH ICH AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO ACCEPT ANY AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME O N BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE. IT IS ONLY UNDER THE SPECIFIED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT THAT A PERSON CAN ACT AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 160. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI AND SHRI PRAKAS H HARIRAMANI ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEES UNDER THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 8. DISCLOSURE MADE TO BUY MENTAL PEACE. SEARCH STARTED ON 30.08.2016 AND WAS CONCLUDED ON 04.09.2016 BUT WAS EXTENDED UP TO 27.10.2016 FOR UPLIFTING OF PROHIBITORY ORDER. THERE WAS TREMENDOU S PRESSURE WITH DISTRESS AND DISTURBED STATE OF MIND HE HAD NO OTHE R ALTERNATIVE BUT TO SURRENDER TO THE DICTATES OF SEARCH PARTY IN DURESS . CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECLARATION SO MADE, HAS NO VALID/ COGENT GROUND, B ASIS/ SUPPORTIVE PLAUSIBLE MATERIAL AND AS SUCH IS UNFOUNDED BEING I NDEFENSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 9. THOUGH ADMISSION IS THE BEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE, YET THE SAME IS NOT CONCLUSIVE. IT IS WELL WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF SHRI AR UN HARIRAMANI, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI AND SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI TO DEMONSTRA TE THAT THE SAME WAS INCORRECTLY MADE AND NOT VOLUNTARY. CONTINUOUS GRILLING OF A PERSON THAT TOO FOR SIX CONSECUTIVE DAYS (FROM 30.08.2016 TO 04.09.2016) WOULD PUT LOT OF MENTAL PRESSURE ON ANY PERSON. UNDER THI S SET OF FACTS IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS VOLUNTA RY. THIS CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH PARTY IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBDT INS TRUCTIONS F. NO. 286/2/2003 IT (INV.) DATED 10 TH MARCH 2003 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNDER COERCION, THREAT, STRESS OR DURESS. [CLPB 284 ] 10. THE WELL-SETTLED POSITION IN THIS RESPECT, AS POINT ED OUT BY THE COURT, IS THAT WHILE THE REVENUE CAN USE A STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) AS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN THE STATEMENT, SUCH PERSON CAN, HOWEVER, RETRACT THE STATEMENT SUCCESSF ULLY IF HE PROVES THAT THE STATEMENT WAS NOT GIVEN IN A PROPER FRAME OF MI ND OR WAS GIVEN UNDER DURESS AND THREAT OR UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF LAW . THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO CORROBORATE THE AD MISSION CONTAINED IN THE STATEMENT, WITH INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, MORE PARTICUL ARLY WITH THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH RELATING TO THE ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 27 10.1 THE WORD STATEMENT IS DEFINED NEITHER IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT NOR IN THE EVIDENCE ACT, AND, HENCE, IT ASSUMES ITS DICTIO NARY MEANING OF SOMETHING THAT IS STATED. 10.2 AS PER SECTION 31 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, ADMISSIONS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE MATTERS ADMITTED, BUT THEY MAY OPERATE AS ESTOPPEL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AS CONTAIN ED. FOR AN ADMISSION TO BE EFFECTIVE, CORROBORATION WITH THIRD PARTY EVI DENCE IS REQUIRED. 10.3 IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THOUGH STATEMENTS RECORDED WILL HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE, YET SUCH STATEMENTS ARE NOT ALWA YS CONCLUSIVE PROOF SINCE THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT CAN REBUT AND RETRACT. 10.4 A RETRACTION TO HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE MUS T PREFERABLY BE IN A STATEMENT NOT ONLY DENYING THE EARLIER STATED FACTS BUT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR MAKING A STATEMENT EARLIER AND GIVING S UBSTITUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF RETRACTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY H ARIRAMANI. ASSESSEE RETRACTED THIS DISCLOSURE BY NOT INCLUDING IT IN TH E RETURN FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. [PB 01] 10.5 IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STA TEMENTS WHICH ARE RECORDED BY ADMINISTERING OATH ARE PRESUMED TO BE C ARRYING TRUTH IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 181 AND SECTION 193 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE WHICH PROVIDE FOR IMPRISONMENT IF THE FALSE ST ATEMENT IS GIVEN. WHEN IT IS SO, NO ONE WOULD LIKE TO BE PUNISHED KNOWINGL Y AND, HENCE, IT IS BUT LOGICAL TO ACCEPT A SWORN STATEMENT OR THE STATEMEN T TAKEN ON OATH AS REVEALING THE TRUTH. 11. FOR ANY RETRACTION TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE EYES OF LAW THE MAKER HAS TO SHOW AS TO HOW EARLIER RECORDED STATEMENTS DO NOT S TATE THE TRUE FACTS OR THAT THERE WAS COERCION, INDUCEMENT OR THREAT WHILE RECORDING HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS. IN SUCH CASES, RETRACTION IS POSSIBLE. IN ANY CASE, FOR THE A.O. TO ADD THE INCOME DISCLOSED OR CONFESSED, THE SAME MUST BE COR ROBORATED WITH MATERIALS ON RECORD AND IF THE ASSESSEE CAN DEMONST RATE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT STATEMENT WAS NOT CORRECT, THERE IS NO Q UESTION AS TO WHY RETRACTION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI RETRACTED THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI BY ATTRIBUTING RS. 1.50 CR ORE TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. NO DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS TO CORROBORATE THE TENTATIVE BREAKUP FO R THE INCOME SURRENDERED. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 28 12. LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS MADE B Y SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI FOR HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMIL Y MEMBERS, PARTNERSHIP CONCERNS, PARTNERS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONC ERNS AND COMPANIES. THE TENTATIVE BREAKUP OF THIS DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIO NAL INCOME WAS NOT BASED ON VERIFICATION OF ANY DOCUMENTS, NO INCRIMIN ATING DOCUMENTS WERE REFERRED OR POINTED OUT AND NO HEAD OF INCOME TO WH ICH THE SAID OFFERED INCOME RELATES WAS SPECIFIED. 13. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, NO MONEY, BULLION, JE WELLERY, STOCK, CASH, ANY OTHER MOVEABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS FOUND WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED, RECORDED OR UNDISCLOSED. IN THE GIVE N SITUATION, IN ABSENCE OF ANY UNRECORDED ASSETS (BEING CASH/BULLION/IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY, ETC.) FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE ONLY POSSIBILITY FOR FINDING ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS BY WAY OF PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, WHICH IN FACT IS NIL. 14. UNDER SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT, PRESUMPTION IS ON LY ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LOOSE SHEETS ARE NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS. THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE RAISED ON THE BASIS OF NOTING ON LOOSE SHEETS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EVIDENCE OR CORROBORATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ENTRIES IN LOOSE SHEETS, NO ADVERSE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON MERE GUESS AND PURE SUSPICION. 14.1 IT IS IMPORTANT AND VITAL FACT IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NOTHING INCRIMINATING WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F CONDUCT OF SEARCH PERTAINING TO OR RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE. THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED IN THE SEARCH SO CONDUCTED HAS BEE N EXPLAINED. FOR ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CASE, RE TURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS ASSESSED BY THE SAME LD. AO. 14.2 THERE WAS NOTHING INCRIMINATING FOUND AND SEIZ ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN RELATION TO THE ADVERSE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. AO ON ADDITION MADE AS PER THE DISCLOSURE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDE D DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. THE SOLE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION IS T HE STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI (NOT THE ASSESSEE) WHICH HAD BEEN RETRACTED. 14.3 LD. AO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON THE FOUND ATION OF BARE HUSK OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI MADE IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, WHO ATTRIBUTED SO, ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH FOR ITS CORROBORATION. 14.4 LD. AO BEING QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS NOT C OMPETENT TO DRAW INFERENCES IN VACUUM, WITHOUT THE BASE OF INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL RELEVANT RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 29 TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE, EVIDENCE AND RELEVANT PRO VISIONS, AS HAS BEEN DONE, IN THE PRESENT CASE. LD. AO IS REQUIRED TO AC T IN A JUDICIAL MANNER WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A R WS 143(3). 14.5 LD. AO BEING QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY MUST NOT BASE HIS FINDINGS ON NO-MATERIAL OR NO-EVIDENCE. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL R ULE OF JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THERE MAY BE SOM ETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION, TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS, IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF A. DHIRAJLAL GIRDHARILAL V. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) B. OMAR SALAY MD. SAIT V. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) C. DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) D. LAL CHAND BHAGAT AMBICA V. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) 14.6 IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH CASES, AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, LD. AO IS COMPETENT TO ACT ON WHAT IS TECHNICALLY DESCRIBED AS 'EVIDENCE' IN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 142 AND 143 OF THE ACT, ON 'THE INCRIMINATING MATER IAL GATHERED' DURING THE CONDUCT OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEING QUA SI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, CANNOT MAKE ADDITION, BEING EXPEDIENT, AS A MATTER OF POLICY OR ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMED AND NON-EXISTENT MATERIAL. 14.7 RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS FOR THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE: A. SURINDER PAL VERMA V. ASSTT. CIT [2004] 89 ITD 129 (CHD. ITAT) ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07.01.2004 PARA 24 [CLPB 245 ] B. ASSTT. CIT V. ANOOP KUMAR [2005] 94 TTJ (ASM.) 288 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28.12.2004 PARA 7 [CLPB 262 ] C. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. K. BHUVANENDRA [2008] 303 ITR 235 (MAD) HELD IN PARA 26 D. HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH NARAIN RATAN KUMAR [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 173 (RAJ) ORDER DATED 0 5.02.2015 PARA 12 [CLPB 266 ] D. PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPELS CANNOT OPERATE AGAINST THE P ROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1. AS IN THE CASE OF ESTOPPEL, IT CANNOT OPERATE AGAIN ST THE PROVISIONS OF STATUE. IF A PARTICULAR INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, IT CANNOT BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF ESTOPPEL OR ANY OTH ER EQUITABLE DOCTRINE. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 30 EQUITY IS OUT OF PLACE IN TAX LAW; A PARTICULAR INC OME IS EITHER ELIGIBLE TO TAX UNDER THE TAXING STATUTE OR IT IS NOT. IF IT IS NOT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO POWER TO IMPOSE TAX ON THE SAID INCOME. ARTI CLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS PROVIDE S THAT NO TAX SHALL BE LEVIED OR COLLECTED EXCEPT BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. ACQ UIESCENCE CANNOT TAKE AWAY FROM A PARTY THE RELIEF THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO WHERE THE TAX IS LEVIED OR COLLECTED WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW. THE LAW EMPO WERS THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO LAW AND DETE RMINE THE TAX PAYABLE THEREON. IN DOING SO HE CANNOT ASSESS AN AS SESSEE ON AN AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE IN LAW, EVEN IF THE SA ME IS SHOWN BY AN ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT AGAINST L AW NOR IS THERE ANY WAIVER OF THE LEGAL RIGHT AS MUCH AS THE LEGAL LIAB ILITY TO BE ASSESSED OTHERWISE THAN ACCORDING TO THE MANDATE OF THE LAW. 2. PRINCIPLES OF ESTOPPELS WILL NOT OPERATE AGAINST TH E INCOME-TAX ACT AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V.MR.P FIRM [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC). [CLPB 267-275 ] HENCE, MERE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WOULD NO T AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE SAME, I F THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE SAME SUBSEQUENTLY WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 3. PRINCIPLES OF ESTOPPELS WERE ALSO DEALT BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALMUKUND ACHARYA 310 ITR 310 (BOM) AS HELD IN PARA 33 [CLPB 283 ] E. APPLICATION FILED BY THE RAMANI GROUP BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION 1. AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF RAMANI GROUP ON 24.12.201 8. THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED U/S 245D(1) VIDE ORDER DATED 04.0 1.2019 IN WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 24.27 CRORES HAS BEEN OFFE RED TO TAX. DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED ALONG WIT H THE NAME OF THE GROUP CONCERNS IS TABULATED BELOW [PB 05-06] SR. NO. APPLICANTS NAME ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED (RS.) 1 RAMANI ICE- CREAM COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED 11,74,27,005 2 SHRI GIRISH AWATRAMANI 1,75,13,000 3 SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI 39,97,000 4 WINDSOR INFRA 1,46,58,000 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 31 5 ISHAAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS 8,91,96,000 TOTAL 24,27,91,005 2. THE ADMISSION OF APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE HONB LE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS AN IN-PRINCIPLE ADMISSION. 3. FACT ABOUT DISCLOSURE OF RS. 25 CRORES MADE BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITIES FORMING PART OF RAMANI G ROUP IS REPORTED IN THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION, BASED ON WHICH THE ABOVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SA ID APPLICATION. [PB 28] 4. LD. CIT(A) TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THIS ACCEPTANCE OF AP PLICATION UNDER SECTION 245D(1) BY THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, SUBMISSIONS MADE, DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO OF RS. 1.50 CRORES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEM ENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH AND NO NEXUS WITH SEIZED DOCUMENTS/INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL, OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 11. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS : S.NO. PARTICULARS 1. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) 2. ULTIMATE BUILDERS ITA NO. 1 34/IND/20 19 (IT AT IND ORE) 3. SUDEEP MAHESHWARI IT A NO.524/IND/20 13 (IT AT INDORE) 4. DILIP KUMAR & COMPANY [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 327 (SC) 5. GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. [2017] 80 TAXMANN.COM 284 (MUMB AI - TRIB.) (SB) 6. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY [2017] 84 TAXMA NN.COM 290 (SC) RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 32 7. MECHMEN [2015] 60 TAXRNANN.CORN 484 (MP HC) 8. SAT ISH NEMA IT(SS)A NO 149, 150 & 152/IND/2016 (ITAT INDORE) 9. MEETA GUTGUTIA [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 287 (DELHI HC) 10 MEETA GUTGUTIA [2018] 96 TAXMANN.COM 468 (SC) 11 NARESH KUMAR VERMA [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 280 (ITA T CHANDIGARH) 12 SUNIL AGGARWAL ITA NO. 224 OF2003 (DELHI HC) 13 CHANDRA KUMAR JETHMAL [2015] 55 TAXMANN.COM 292 ( GUJ. HC) 14 SURINDER PAL VERMA [2004] 89 ITO 129 (ITAT CHANDIG ARH - TM) 15 ANOOP KUMAR [2005] 147 TAXMAN 26 (ITAT AMRITSAR) 16 JAGDISH NARAIN RATAN KUMAR [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 173 (RAJ HC) 17 V. MR. P. FIRM [1965] 56 ITR 67 (SC) 18 BALMUKUND ACHARYA [2009] 176 TAXMAN 316 (BORN.) 19. CBDT INSTRUCTION F. NO. 286/2/2003- IT (INV. II) DATED 10-03-2003 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF B OTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AND VARIOUS JUDGMENTS REFERRED AND RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. REVENUES SOLE GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00,000/- BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON AC COUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT MADE U /S 132(4) OF THE ACT. 13. WE NOTE THAT SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(4) OF THE AC T CONDUCTED ON RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 33 RAMANI GROUP ON 30 TH AUGUST 2016. ALL THE BUSINESS CONCERNS AND INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED WITH M/S. RAMANI GROUP WERE S UBJECTED TO SEARCH, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND RECORD ED STATEMENT OF MR. ARUN HARIRAMANI WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WHEREIN LUMP SUM DISCLOSURE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF TH E GROUP AT RS.25,00,00,000/- WAS MADE WHICH WAS STATED TO BE R OUGH ANALYSIS. AGAIN ON 27.10.2016 STATEMENT WAS RECORDE D AND MR. VIJAY HARIRAMANI BROTHER OF ARUN RAMANI AGAIN CONFI RMED THE DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.25 CR. GIVIN G FOLLOWING BIFURCATION: S.NO. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL/FIRM/COMPANY TOTAL RUPEES IN CR. 1 SHRI HARISH HARIRAMANI 2.00 2 SHRI PRAKASH HARIRAMANI 1.00 3 SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI 3.00 4 SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI 1.50 5 SHRI ABHISHEK HARIRAMANI 0.13 6 MS. DIKSHA HARIRAMANI 0.12 7 MS. NANDINI HARIRAMANI 1.00 8 MRS. SEEMA HARIRAMANI 2.00 9 MR. RITIKA HARIRAMANI 0.20 10 MR. KRITIKA HARIRAMANI 0.55 11 MR. RUCHI HARIRAMANI 1.00 12 M/S. RAMANI IC-CREAM CO. LTD. 2.00 13 M/S L.P.J ENTERPRISES 1.50 14 M/S. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE 2.00 15 M/S TOP-N-TOWN 1.00 16 M/S AADITYA FOOD PRODUCTS 2.00 17 M/S SHREE BALAJEE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS 4.00 ALL TOTAL 25.00 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 34 14. WHILE GIVING ABOVE BIFURCATION MR. VIJAY HARIRA MANI HAS STATED THAT HE LOOKS AFTER THE FINANCIAL MATTERS OF THE GR OUP. FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE GROUP ARE VOLUMINOUS. DETAILED ANALY SIS OF VARIOUS YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE-WISE, ASSESSMENT-WISE WITH RE SPECT TO QUANTUM IS NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW AND SUBSTANTIAL T IME WILL BE NEEDED TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS ONCE COPY OF SEIZED R ECORDS PROVIDED. 15. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT FOLLOWING 5 CONCERNS/INDIV IDUALS OF THE RAMANI GROUP FILED AN APPLICATION ON 24.12.2018 BEF ORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION OFFERING ADDITIONAL INCOM E DECLARED IN THE SOF AT RS.24,27,91,005/-. ADDITIONAL INCOME APPLICANT'S NAME STATUS DECLARED IN THE SOF M/S RARNANLLTE=CREARRR . COMPANY RS.11,74,27,005/-. COMPANY LTD SHRL GIRISH AWATRAMANI INDIVIDUAL RS. 1,75 ,13,000 / - , ,,, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANRI' . INDIVIDUAL RS.39,97,OOO/- M/S WINDSOR INFRA FIRM RS. 1,46 ,58,OOO/ - M/S ISHAAN BUILDERS AND FIRM RS.8,91,96,OOO/- DEVELOPERS TOTAL RS.24,27,91,005 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 35 16. THE ABOVE STATED AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX AND TAXES WERE DULY PAID AND INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.12.2020 PASSED AN ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT A CCEPTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. 17. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE BASIS OF THE BIFURCATION OF RS.25,00,00,000/- GIVEN IN THE STATE MENT ON 27.10.2016 BY SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI AND MADE THE AD DITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ASSERTED THE FACT THAT S INCE THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN BY VIJAY HARIRAMANI U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED IN THE LIST SHOWING SURRE NDER OF RS.2,00,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND TO HONOUR T HIS SURRENDER. 18. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS IN DETAIL, MAKING REFERENCES TO CIRCULARS OF CENTRAL B OARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHER JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE HELD IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 36 GROUND NO 2 TO 6:- THROUGH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00,0001- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED DURING SEARCH AND TAXING THE INCOME ULS 115BBE OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT IS HAVING INCOME FROM SALA RY, HOUSE PROPERTY, REMUNERATION & SHARE INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. THE APPELLANT APART FROM THE ABOVE, HAVING AN INCOME FROM BANK INTEREST ETC. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 7,23,3901- WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O., HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS MADE AD DITION OF RS. 2 CRORES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS SURRENDERED U/S.132(4) AND ITS RETRACTION IN THE RETURN IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 4.2.1 IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HA S NO SOURCE OF INCOME, AND FILED THE NIL RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE FAMILY, THE MAIN BUSINESS IS THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING & SALE OF ICE CREAM WHICH IS BEING CARRIED ON IN THE NAME OF RAMANI ICE CREAM CO. PVT LTD. UNDER THE BRAND NAME 'TOP-N- TOWN ICE CREAM'. ON 30.08.2016, SEARCH OPERATION WE RE CONDUCTED AT THE FACTORY AND THE OTHER BUSINESS PREMISES AND SIMULTA NEOUSLY SEARCH WERE ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF DIREC TORS LIVING JOINTLY IN THE HOUSE AT E-1, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS COMPLETED ON 04.09.2016. IN THE SEARCH, WITHOUT REF ERENCE TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, OR ANY SPECIFIC PAPER AN ADHOC SUR RENDER OF INCOME OF RS. 25 CRORES WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIRE GRO UP BY SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 03.09.2016/04.09.2016. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STA TEMENT I.E. ANSWER TO Q.NO.25 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 37 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 38 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 39 RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 40 THE ABOVE STATEMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS A BAL D & ADHOC STATEMENT OF DECLARATION WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY A SSESSMENT YEAR OR ANY SPECIFIC PAPER/DOCUMENT, MONEY, BULLION , JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OF THINGS FOUND IN THE S EARCH. 4.2.2 THAT THE SUBSEQUENT TO THE AFORESAID STATEMEN T, THE STATEMENT OF VIJAY HARIRAMANI WAS ALSO TAKEN U/S 13 2(4) ON 27.10.2016. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT I S AS UNDER:- RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 41 FROM THE READING OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT, IT IS ABUN DANTLY CLEAR THAT VIJAY RAMANI SAID THAT IT IS A TENTATIVE BREAK UP OF THE FIGURE OF INCOME. HE FURTHER SAID THAT THE TENTATIVE FIGURES OF INCOME A RE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTION/REVISION WITH RESPECT TO IN DIVIDUAL ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- 'IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE I LOOK FOR FINANCIAL MA TTER OF THE GROUP AND DURING THE SEARCH, I WAS OUT OF TOWN. PAPERS AND TH E FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE GROUP SEIZED ARE VOLUMINOUS AND, THEREFORE, THE IR DETAILED ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE-WISE, ASSESSMENT YEAR -WISE AND WITH RESPECT TO QUANTUM IS NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW BECAUS E IT WILL TAKE SUBSTANTIAL TIME THAT TOO AFTER GETTING COPY OF ALL SEIZED RECORDS. HOWEVER, SUBJECT TO ROUGH ANALYSIS AND MEMORY, BASED ON SEIZ ED RECORDS, I HEREWITH ACCEPT AND I AM GIVING A CHART THEREIN TEN TATIVE FIGURES OF THE INCOME OF THE VARIOUS ASSESSEE IN THE GROUP WHICH M AY CONSTITUTE A RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 42 TENTATIVE BREAK UP OF THE DISCLOSED INCOME. THE TEN TATIVE FIGURES OF INCOME ARE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION/CORRECTION/REVISION WIT H RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE, QUANTUM OF INCOME.' AFTER ANALYZING THE VARIOUS PAPERS AND THE SEIZED D OCUMENTS, THE GROUP HAS SURRENDERED/DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN THE APPLICA TION FILED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION HAS ADMITTED THE APPLICATION AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S.245D(1) ON 24.12.2018. IN THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION THE STATEMENT OF VIJAY HARIR AMANI, IN WHICH, THE TENTATIVE BREAKUP WAS GIVEN, HAS ALSO BEEN REFERED AND REPRODUCED AND CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF ARUN HARIRAMANI, VIJAY HARIRAMANI AND PRAKASH HARIRAMANI THE DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME OF THE GROUP WAS MADE AT RS.24,27,91,005/-. 4.2.3 THE APPELLANT NEVER SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 2 CRORES IN SEARCH. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE TENTATIVE/ESTIMATED/PROJECTED BIFURCATION GIVEN BY VIJAY HARIRAMANI. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY AS SESSMENT YEAR TO WHICH THE ADHOC SURRENDER INCOME RELATES. IT IS ALS O MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ASSET/INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND UNEXPLAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2 CRORES AND THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME RS. 2 CRORE S FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2017-18. THERE IS ALSO NO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2 CRORES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE/INCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO A.Y. 2017-18. 4.2.4 THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME FOR ALL THE A SSESSMENT YEARS FROM A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2016-17, HOWEVER, IN A.Y. 2017 -18, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF A ROUGH/PROJECTED/TENTATIVE BIFURCATION GIVEN BY VIJAY HARIRAMANI IN HIS STATEMENT AS REPRODUCED ABO VE. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 43 THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAN REPORTED IN 390 ITR 189 (MAD) HELD THAT IF TH ERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THEN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S.132(4) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT ANY ADVERSE DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT' WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERE STATEMENT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT. THE JURISDICTIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE IN THE CA SE OF ACIT V S. Y OGESH KUMAR HOTWANI REPORTED IN 30 ITJ 353 (IN D) HELD TH AT NO ADDITION BE MADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT U/S.132(4) WI THOUT LINKING TO BOOKS AND OTHER ASSETS FOUND. THE CBDT HAS ALSO INSTRUCTE D THAT THERE SHOULD BE A FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION ON THE COLLECTION OF EVID ENCE OF INCOME, THE RELEVANT CIRCULARS ARE AS UNDER :- CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH &SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION F. NO. 286/2/2003-IT (INV) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE &COMPANY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ROOM NO. 2541N0RTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, THE 10TH MARC H, 2003 TO ALL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX, (CADRE CONTRAL) & ALL DIRECTORS GENERAL OFINCOME TAX INV. SIR SUBJECT: CONFESSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 44 SEARCH &SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATION -REGARDING INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD WHER E ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFESS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH &SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. SUCH CONFESSIONS, IF NOT BASED UPON CRE DIBLE EVIDENCE, ARE LATER RETRACTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES WHIL E FILING RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THESE EIRCUMSTANCES, ON CONFESSIONS DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH &SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS DO NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE. IT IS, THEREFORE, ADVISED THAT THERE SHOUL D BE FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION ON COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OF INCOME W HICH LEADS TO INFORMATION ON WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED OR IS NO T LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTS. SIMILA RLY, WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT SEIZURES AND SURVEY OPERATIONS NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTA IN CONFESSION AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ANY ACTION ON THE CON TRARY SHALL BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ALSO, ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD RELY UPON THE EVIDENCES/M ATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATI ONS OR THEREAFTER WHILE FRAMING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (S. R. MAHAPATRA] UNDER SECRETARY (INV. II) F.NO. 286/98/2013-IT (INV.IT) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ROOM NO. 265A, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI, THE 18TH DECEMBER, 2014 1. ALL PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX 2. ALL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX 3. ALL DIRECTORS GENERAL OFLNCOME TAX (INV.) RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 45 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (I & CI), NEW DELHI SUBJECT: ADMISSIONS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER COERCION/PRESSURE DURING SEARCH/SURVEY - REG. REF: 1) CBDT LETTER F.NO. 286/S7/2002-IT(INV.LL) D T. 03-07-2002 2) CBDT LETTER F.NO. 286/2/2003-IT(INV.II) DT. 10-03-2 003 3) CBDT LETTER F.NO. 286/98/2013-IT(INV.LL) DT. 09-Q1- 2014 SIR/MADAM, INSTANCES/COMPLAINTS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE/COERCION HA VE COME TO NOTICE OF THE CBDT THAT SOME ASSESSEES WERE COERCED TO ADMIT UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING SEARCHES/SURVEYS OPRIDUCT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT MANY SUCH ADMISSIO NS ARE RETRACTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE SAME ARE NO T BACKED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. SUCH ACTIONS DEFEAT THE VERY PUR POSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATIONS AS THEY FAIL TO BRING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO TAX IN A SUSTAINABLE MANNER LEAVE ALONE L EVY OF PENALTY OR LAUNCHING OF PROSECUTION. FURTHER, SUCH ACTIONS SHO W THE DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE AND OFFICERS CONCERNED IN POOR LIGHT 2. I AM FURTHER DIRECTED TO INVITE YOUR ATTENTION TO T HE INSTRUCTIONS/GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CBDT FROM TIME TO TIME, AS REFERRED ABOVE, THROUGH WHICH THE BOARD HAS EMPHASIZED UPON THE NEED TO FOCUS ON GATHERING EVIDENCES DURING SEARCH/SURVEY AND TO STRICTLY AVOID OBTAININ G ADMISJON OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER COERCION/UNDUE INFLUENCE. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WHILE REITERATING THE AFORESA ID GUIDELINES OF THE BOARD, I AM DIRECTED TO CONVEY THAT ANY INSTANC E OF UNDUE INFLUENCE/COERCION IN THE RECORDING OF THE STATEMEN T DURING SEARCH/SURVEY/OTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THE I.T.ACT,19 61 AND/OR RECORDING A DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER UNDUE PRESSURE/ COERCION SHALL BE VIEWED BY THE BOARD ADVERSELY. 4. THESE GUIDELINES MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF AL L CONCERNED IN YOUR REGION FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE. 5. I HAVE BEEN FURTHER DIRECTED TO REQUEST YOU TO CLOS ELY OBSERVE/OVERSEE THE ACTIONS OF THE OFFICERS FUNCTIO NING UNDER YOU IN THIS REGARD. 6. THIS ISSUES WITH APPROVAL OF THE CHAIRPERSON, C BDT (K. RAVI RAMCHANDRANRAN) DIRECTOR (INV.)-II, CBDT RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 46 COPY TO: 1. DIT (SYSTEMS)-IV WITH A REQUEST TO UPLOAD IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OFINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT I.E.INCOMETAXINDIA. GOV.IN . 2. THE ADDL. DIT(DBC) WITH A REQUEST TO UPLOAD IN THE IRSOFFICERSONL WEBSITE. (K. RAVI RAMCHANDRANRAN) DIRECTOR (INV.)-II, CBDT THE A.O., IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION O N THE BASIS OF SUCH RETRACTED STATEMENT IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS :- 4.2.5 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APEX COURT IN THE CA SE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO LTD VS. STATE OFKERALA 91 ITR 18 (SC) HELD THAT 'AN ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EV IDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT. ' FURTHER IN CASE OF NAGUBAI AMMAL VS. B. SHARMA RAO AIR 1956 SC 593 HELD ' AN ADMISSION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS STATED THEREIN . IT IS ONLY A PIECE OF EVID ENCE, THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO WHICH MUST DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANC ES UNDER WHICH IT IS MADE. IT CAN BE SHOWN TO BE ERRONEOUS O R UNTRUE '. FURTHER IN THE CASE OFKRISHANLAL SHIVCHAND RAI VS. CIT 88 ITR 293 (P & H) HELD THAT 'IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE PARTY IS ENTITLE TO SHOW AND PROVE THAT THE ADMISSION MADE B Y HIM PROBABLY IS IN FACT NOT CORRECT AND TRUE' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JAIN VS. DCIT ITAT DE LHI BENCH REPORTED IN 100 TTJ (DEL) 929/935 HELD THAT 'IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LEAD DIRECT EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF PRESSURE TACTICS. IT IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE EVIDENCE MOSTLY CIRCU MSTANCES. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 8 OF PAGE 933 FURTHER HELD THAT 'IT IS TRUE THAT AUTHORIZED OFFICER CARRYING ON SEARCH U/S.132 IS ENTITLED AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISION, TO RECORD STATEMENT OF THE PERSON SEARCHED U/S. 132(4) OF THE I.T ACT AND USE THAT STATEMENT F OR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. ALL THE SAME PERSON CARRYING THE SEARCH IS A PERSON POSSESSING SOME AUTHORITY AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSES SMENT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY BASED ON CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT PRO CURED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY THEN, THERE WAS NO NEED TO HAVE E LABORATE PROVISION IN THE STATUTE. THERE WAS NO NEED TO USE LONG ARM OF SEARCH TO COLLECT MATERIAL FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. T HEREFORE, IT IS RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 47 INSISTED THAT CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT SHOULD BE CORR OBORATED SOME MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT ASSESSMENT MADE IS TRUE AND F AIR FURTHER IN THE CASE OF MS AISHWARYA K. RAI V S, DC IT REPORTED IN 105 TTJ (MUM) (TM) 825/896 HELD THAT 'IT IS WELL SE TTLED THAT A STATEMENT U/S.132(4) IS NOT THE LAST WORD, AND IF T HE PERSON CONCERNED RETRACTS/CLARIFIES THE SAME SUBSEQUENTLY ON ASCERTAINMENT OF CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS AND EXPLA INS THE SAME IT CAN BE ALLOWED. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SHRIKRISHNA V S. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC 376 HELD THAT' ANY ADMISSIO N MADE IN IGNORANCE OF LEGAL RIGHTS OR UNDER DURESS CANNOT BI ND THE MAKER OF THE ADMISSION. MERE ADMISSION CANNOT BE BEDROCK OR FOUNDATION OF AN ASSESSMENT. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF PUSHP VIHAR VS. ACIT REPORTE D IN 48 TTJ (BORN) 389 HELD THAT: IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT W HAT THE ASSESSEE SAID ORIGINALLY WAS SACROSANCT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT LIBERTY NOR IT DOES NOT LIE IN HIS MOUTH TO CORRECT THE ERROR, ORIGINALLY COMMITTED BY GIVING A DIFFERENT VERSION OF TRUTH. AS SAID BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KRISHNAN (SUPRA) THAT ANY ADMISSIO N MADE IN IGNORANCE OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS CANNOT BIND THE MAKER OF THE ADMISSION. IT IS ALWAYS OPENED TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CORRECT FACTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL APART FROM THE ORIGINAL ADMISSION, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE ADMISSIO N. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF AWAD KISHORE DASS AIR 1979 S C 861 HELD THAT 'IT IS TRUE THAT THE EVIDENTIARY ADMISSIONS AR E NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACTS ADMITTED AND MAY BE EXPLAINED OR SHOWN TO BE WRONG. ' FURTHER THE ALLAHABD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. RADHAKISHAN GOEL REPORTED IN 278 ITR 454/460- PARA 11 (ALL) HELD THAT 'IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE, WHICH CAN NOT BE IGNORED THAT THE SEARCH IS BEING CONDUCTED WITH THE COMPLET E TEAM OF THE OFFICERS CONSISTING OF SEVERAL OFFICERS WITH THE PO LICE FORCE. USUALLY TELEPHONE AND ALL OTHER CONNECTIONS ARE DISCONNECTE D AND ALL INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE BLOCKED. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PERSON IS SO TORTURED HARASSED AND PUT TO A MENTAL AGONY THAT HE LOSES HIS NORMAL MENTAL STATE OF MIND AND AT THAT STAGE IT CA NNOT BE EXPECTED FROM A PERSON TO PRE-EMPT THE STATEMENT REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN IN LAW AS A PART OF HIS DEFENCE RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 48 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF KAILASH BEN MANHARLAL CHOUKS I V S. CIT REPORTED IN 220 CTR 1381147 PARA 26 (GUJ) HELD THAT ' WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO SUCH ADDI TIONS UNLESS AND UNTIL, SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FOUND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADMISSION. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT FROM THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED AT SUCH ODD HOURS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VOLU NTARY STATEMENT, IF IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED AND NECE SSARY EVIDENCE IS LED CONTRARY TO SUCH ADMISSION. HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DISBELIEVE THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE A 0 AND EXPLANATION 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 AO UNDER S. 132( 4) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR IN IGNORING THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF R.P. MONGA VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 269 ITR (AT) 1 (DEL) HELD THAT ' IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX PROCE EDINGS, THE CONFESSION STATEMENT MADE U/S.132(4) COULD BE USED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSE E COULD RETRACT EITHER WHILE FILING THE RETURN OR DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT NAGPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SADHURAM WADHWA NI REPORTED IN 81 TTJ (NAG) 839. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERS A DECISION OF HON'BLE MADR AS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. JAYA LAKSHMI AMMAL REPORTE D IN (2017) 390 ITR 189 (MAD), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HELD T HAT 'WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT, FOR DECIDING ANY ISSUE, A GAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE IT ACT, 1961 HA VE TO CONSIDER, AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL EVID ENCE. IF THERE IS NO CORROBORATING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THEN STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER S. 132(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, ALONE SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS, FOR ARRIVING AT ANY ADVERSE DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. IF THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE IT ACT, 1961, HAVE TO BE CONF ERRED WITH THE POWER, TO BE EXERCISED, SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF A ST ATEMENT, THEN IT MAY LEAD TO AN ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF SUCH POWER. AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ENTAILS CIVIL CONSEQUENCES. THEREFORE, U NDER JUDICIAL REVIEW, COURTS HAVE TO EXERCISE DUE CARE AND CAUTIO N THAT NO MAN IS CONDEMNED, DUE TO ERRONEOUS OR ARBITRARY EXERCISE O F AUTHORITY CONFERRED. ' THE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT 'IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A STATEMENT UNDER S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, AND IF THERE ARE ANY IN CRIMINATING RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 49 DOCUMENTS FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION, THEN THE CASE IS DIFFERENT. ON THE CONTRA, IF MERE STATEMENT MADE UNDER S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL, HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDENCE, THAN IT WOULD LEAD TO DISASTROUS RESULTS. CONSIDERING TH E NATURE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, IN THE INSTANT CASE CHARACTERI SED AS UNDISCLOSED AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MERE STATEMENT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CO NCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT. ' 4.2.6 THE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL INDORE IN THE CASE OF A CIT V S. SHRI Y OGESH KUMAR HOTWANI REPORTED IN 30 ITJ 353/3 80 (IND-TRIB) HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT U/S.132(4) WITHOUT LINKING TO THE SEIZED BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLES OR THINGS. IN PARA 18 OF THE ORDER, AT PAGE 380, THE T RIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER :- 'WE ALSO FIND THAT DISCLOSURE WAS NOT MADE BY THE A SSESSEE HENCE IT IS NOT BINDING ON HIM. WE ALSO RELY ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHANDRA KUMAR JETHMAL KOCHAR, (2015) 230 TAXMAN 78 (GUJ), ASSTT. CIT V. KUNWARJEET FINANCE PVT. LIMITED, (201 5) 61 TAXMANN.COM 52 (AHM.TRIB.), CIT V. JAGDISH NARAYAN RATAN KUMAR, (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 173 (RAJ), WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT WHEN ADDITION OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN STAT EMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED DESPITE RETRACTI ON, WHEN REVENUE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND INCLINED TO AGREE WITH LD. CIT(A). FURTHER, THE HON 'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH NARAYAN RATAN KUM AR (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT STATEMENT MADE DURING SEARCH MUST BE CORR ELATED WITH RECORDS, WHICH ARE FOUND AND IF THERE IS NO AMBIGUI TY, EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION BEFORE MAKING ASSESSMENT. THUS, BASED ON THESE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY MERELY BASED ON S TATEMENT U/S 132(4) WITHOUT LINKING TO THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER)' OTHER VALUABL E ARTICLES OR THINGS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW 4.2.7 NO DOCUMENTS/INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER AS SETS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN HIS CONTROL AND POSSESSION WHICH MAY SUGGEST REMOTELY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME/INVESTMENT OF RS. 2 CRORES IN A.Y. 2017-18 AND, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THIRD PERSON, ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES IS RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 50 NEITHER LAWFUL NOR JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT WHILE F ILING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DECLARED ADDITIONA L INCOME AS UNDER WHICH HAS BEEN EARLIER DISCLOSED IN THE INDIV IDUAL HANDS:- APPLICANTS NAME STATUS ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE SOF TAX PAYABLE ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED M/S RAMANI ICE-CREAM CO. LTD. COMPANY RS.11,74,27,005/- RS.4,03,17,647/- SHRI GIRISH AWATRIMANI INDIVIDUAL RS.1,75,13,000/- RS.54,11,515/- SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI FIRM RS.39,97,000/- RS.49,39,138/- M/S. WINDSOR INFRA FIRM RS.1,46,58,000/- RS.2,9299,13,054/- M/S. ISHAAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS FIRM RS.8,91,96,000/- RS.2,92,13,054/- TOTAL RS.24,27,91,005/- RS.8,11,16,427/- THE ABOVE INCOME IS NOTHING BUT THE SAME INCOME WHI CH HAS BEEN DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. BY MAKING ADDITION AGAIN IN THE HAND'S OF APPELLANT IS NOTHING BUT THE DOUBLE TAXATION ON THE SAME AMOUNT. THE SIMILAR VIEW HAS ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY HON 'BLE JAIPUR TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VAIBHAV LAKHI VIS DCIT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER IS RE PRODUCED BELOW: 'THU IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS ALSO CONSIDERED TH IS FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJEC T TO THE OUTCOME OF THE LD. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER SINCE THE SA ME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. NOW THE LD. SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22-04-2019 HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE SAI D INCOME OFFERED BY THESE TWO FIRMS. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUS ED THE ORDER OF THE LD. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREIN THIS AMOUNT O F RS. 45,977/- WAS ALSO PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OFFERED BY THESE TWO FIRMS FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS OFFERED AT RS. 28,71,319/- WHICH WAS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO FIRMS MIS. BIHARI LAL HOLARAM, PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND MIS. LAKHI GEMS. IN RATIO OF 95% : 5%. FINALLY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACCEPTED AS OFFER TO TAX BY THESE TWO FIRMS AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION. ONCE THIS AMOUN OF RS. 45,977/- HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE HANDS OF THE TWO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AS PER THE O RDER OF THE LD. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 51 SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 22-04-2019 THEN THE ADD ITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDING LY, THE SAME IS DELETED. ' THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,00,00,0001- 1S DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL ON THESE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED. 19. FROM PERUSAL OF FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE F ACTS PLACED BEFORE US IT IS CLEAR THAT FIRSTLY SURRENDER OF RS.25,00,0 0,000/- WAS ON AN ESTIMATE/TENTATIVE BASIS SINCE NO REFERENCE WAS MAD E TO SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT YEAR, ANY UNDISCLOSED ASSET OR UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE OR SEIZED RECORDS. SECONDLY, DISCLOSURE OF RS.25,00 ,00,000/- WAS MADE BEFORE M/S RAMANI GROUP COULD GET THE COPIES O F SEIZED RECORDS. THIRDLY, AFTER ANALYZING AND EXAMINING THE SEIZED RECORDS M/S. RAMANI GROUP HAS OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.24,27,91,005/- (ALMOST AROUND RS.25 CR.) AND PAI D TAX OF RS.8.11 CR. (APPRO..) IN THE NAME OF FIVE ASSESSEES NAMELY M/S. RAMANI ICE-CREAM COMPANY LTD., SHRI GIRISH AWATRAMA NI, SHRI VIJAY HARIRAMANI, M/S. WINDSOR INFRA & M/S. ISHAAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. FOURTHLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WITH OUT MAKING ANY REFERENCE OR PLACING ANY NEXUS WITH ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE AC T. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 52 20. NOW QUESTION BEFORE US IS THAT IN CASE NO INCRI MINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHETHER THE A SSESSING OFFICER CAN MAKE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ST ATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. ALTHOUGH LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M /S. SIGNATURE BUILDERS IN IT(SS)A.NO.184 TO 186/IND/2018 & OTHERS DATED 08.01.2021 ADJUDICATED SIMILAR ISSUE AND THE RELEVA NT FINDING IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 70. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE REC ORDS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE NAMELY M/S SIGNATURE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS RAISED THE COMMON ISSUE FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND 2014-15 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- AND RS.3,00,00,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WH ICH WAS MADE BY THE LD. A.O ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE OBSER VE THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS SIM ILAR ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND 2014-15 FOR THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 29 .01.2014. INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SIGNATURE GROUP UNDER THE NAME OF VARIOUS CONCERNS IN THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT THE IMPUGNED INCOME WAS NOT SHO WN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES OB SERVATION THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COULD SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT. DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O WAS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN DURIN G THE COURSE OF RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 53 SEARCH. NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE LD. A.O HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR LOOSE PAPER SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAVING ITS NEXUS WITH THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IN ONE OF THE GROUP CONCERN M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS ITA NO.134/IND/2019 OR DER DATED 9.8.2019 SIMILAR ISSUE CAME FOR ADJUDICATION AND THI S TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS RELYING O N THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS DELETED THE ADDITION SINCE THE SAME WERE MADE WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDIN G PARAS WHILE DEALING WITH THE SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED IN THE CASE OF M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS. SINCE THE ISSUE AND FACTS REMAINS THE SA ME LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS NOT BASED ON INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IS JUST ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE IN THE CASE OF M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS HAVE HELD IN PARA 21 OF THIS ORDER AS FOLL OWS:- 21. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.3 OF M/S SIGNATURE BUILDERS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED AND ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS (SUPRA). WE THEREFORE RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAME AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE IDENTICAL FACT THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- AND RS.3,00,00,000/- MAD E BY THE LD. A.O WAS PURELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COUL D SUPPORT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.25,00,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND RS.3,00,00,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND SET ASIDE THE ACTION BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ACCORD INGLY ALLOW GROUND NO.3 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2013- 14 AND 2014-15 RAISED IN ITA NO.185-186/IND/2018. 71. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS (SUPRA) AND ALS O OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND ADDITION OF RS.50,00,00 0/- AND RS.3,00,00,000/- MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14& 2014-15 IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.1 RAISE D BY THE RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 54 ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 (IT(SS)A NO.187 /IND/2019) AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 (IT(SS)A NO.188/IND/ 2019) ARE ALLOWED. 21. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF M/S ULTIMATE BUILDERS IN ITA 134/2019 DATED 09.08.2019 AND ACIT VS . SHRI SUDIP MAHESHWARI IN ITA 524/IND/2013 DATED 13/02/2019. 22. IN THE CASE OF SHRI SUDIP MAHESHWARI (SUPRA) THIS TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. 91 ITR 18 (SC), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD ADMISSION CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE. RETRACTION FROM ADMISSION WAS PERMISSI BLE IN LAW AND IT WAS OPEN TO THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SH OW THAT IT WAS INCORRECT . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDRAKUMAR JETHMAL KOCHAR (2015) 55 TAXMANN.COM 292 (GUJARAT). SIMILARLY RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAILASHBEN MANGARLAL CHOKSHI VS. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (GUJ.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS, RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 55 UNLESS AND UNTIL SOME CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IS FOU ND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ADMISSION . RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHREE GANESH TRADING CO. V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAX CASE NO.8 OF 1999 ORDER DATED 03.01.2013 24. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SIGNATURE BUILDERS (SUPRA) AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS REFERRED HEREINABOVE FIND NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE F INDING OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF FACTS, SETTLED JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE AND DIRECTION GIVEN IN CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND THUS HOLD THAT HE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO SOLELY BASED ON THE STA TEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT WITHOUT REFERRING OR PLACING ANY NEXUS TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THUS, REVENUE FAILS TO SUCCEED I N THE SOLE GROUND RAISED IN ITANO. 211/IND/2019. GROUND NO.1 OF REVEN UES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 56 25. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING APPEALS AT THE INSTANC E OF REVENUE VIDE ITANO.212 TO 214 /IND/2019 IN THE CASE OF ASS ESSEE(S) NAMELY AADITYA FOOD PRODUCTS, SMT. SEEMA HARIRAMANI, SHRI HARISH HARIRAMANI CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00,000/- IN EACH CASE AND IN THE CASE OF A RUN HARIRAMANI IN ITANO.216/IND/2019 CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.1,50,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND THAT THE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE IN THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT BUT WITHOUT REFERRI NG TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED DURING SEARCH. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THIS COMMON ISSUE UNDER THE IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN NAMELY RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE IN ITANO.211/IND/2019 IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WE HEREB Y APPLY THE SAME DECISION AND CONFIRM THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WHICH NEEDS NO INFERENCE. THUS R EVENUE FAILS TO SUCCEED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IN ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHERS IT(SS)A NO.211/IND/2019, & OTHERS 57 26. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE(S) NAMELY M/S. RAMANI INFRASTRUCTURE, AADI TYA FOOD PRODUCTS, SMT. SEEMA HARIRAMANI, SHRI HARISH HARIRA MANI & SHRI ARUN HARIRAMANI VIDE ITANOS.211 TO 214/IND/2018, & ITANO.216/IND/2019 RESPECTIVELY ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 ON 20.07.2021. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANISH BORAD) VICE PRESIDENT A CCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 20.07. 2021 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE