Jharkhand High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sri Ravindra Kumar Jain on 28 April, 2011
Equivalent citations: 2011 (3) AIR JHAR R 413, (2011) 3 JCR 243 (JHA)
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia, D.N. Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
Tax Appeal No. 22 of 2000 (R)
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building,
Main Road, Ranchi . . . .Appellant.
Versus
Sri Ravindra Kumar Jain . . . Respondent
-----
Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Upadhyay
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Sr. S.C.(Income Tax)
Mr. Amit Kumar, J.C. to Sr. S.C.
For the Respondent : Mr. B.K. Jalan, Advocate
Dated 28th April, 2011
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
The appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi dated 24.12.1996 by which, the appeal of the Assessee preferred against the order under Section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act for the year 1994-95 was partly allowed to the extent which shall be discussed hereinbelow and against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.4.2000 confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 24.12.1996.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, substantial question of law involved in this appeal is whether on the facts and evidence of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (I.T.A.T.) was justified in holding that no addition would be made on the basis of surrender made under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 if the Assessee retracted later on and surrender was not corroborated by the independent evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there was voluntary disclosure by the Assessee at the time of search and seizure and his statement was recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the Assessee himself disclosed that he has undisclosed income of Rs.7 lakhs and he admitted that out of Rs.7 lakhs Rs.4 lakhs have been invested in the stock of M/s Moolchand Jain and Sons and some amounts have been given to some persons as loans. Further he has disclosed the amount of Rs.3 lakhs out of Rs.7 lakhs as disclosed in his statement under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been deposited in different Saving Bank Account of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the C.I.T.(A) as well as the Tribunal 2. committed serious error of law by ignoring the fact that the alleged retraction of the Assessee was led in evidence during the course of the hearing before the Assessing Officer but since that was after delay of more than two years, therefore, such retraction statement has no value and should have been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Greenview Restaurant v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in 263 I.T.R. 169. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the fact that there was statement of the Assessee under Section 143(2) and retraction was made after delay of about 2 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that such delay itself cast serious doubt on the retraction made by the Assessee and therefore the question of ignoring the retraction as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Greenview Restaurant (supra), does not arise.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appelllant and perused the reasons given in the orders passed by the C.I.T.(A).
It is not in dispute that during the course of search, the Assessee first submitted that he has nothing to disclose and therefore first stand of the Assessee was that he had no undisclosed income and then the Assessee alleged to had stated that he had also undisclosed income of Rs. 7 Lakhs. However, the Assessing Officer himself found that out of said amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs, the amount which the Assessee stated has been deposited in the Bank, was not found in any Bank and amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs had already been deleted by the Assessing Officer himself. Therefore, part of alleged admission of Assessee was not found correct. Not only this, even from the order passed by the Assessing Officer itself it is apparent that the Assessee, in addition to stating that he deposited Rs 3 Lakhs in different Saving Bank Accounts of Oriental Bank of Commerce, he also lent some money to private persons that fact was also found not correct by the Assessting Officer himself. Therefore, the admission made by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of search contained three facts-(i) that he had no undisclosed income, (ii) the Assessee had undisclosed income of Rs. 7 Lakhs, and
(iii) that he had invested Rs. 4 Lakhs in stock of M/s. Moolchand Jain 3. and Sons in support of which there was no evidence collected by the Assessing Officer and then deposit of Rs. 3 Lakhs in the Bank Account which could not have been if his statement as given at the relevant time is deemed correct, because the Assessee also stated that he lent some of the amounts to some persons. Therefore relying on only one such statement given by the Assessee in these circumstances where out of three two facts were found to be not correct, then in these facts and circumstances, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to collect more evidence in support of the fact that there was undisclosed income of Rs. 7 Lakhs in the hands of the Assessee. These reasons had been considered by the C.I.T.(A) as well as by the I.T.A.T. and therefore, their findings about the taxable income of the Assessee has been given in the facts of the case.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Prakash Tatia, J.) (D.N. Upadhyay, J.) MK/NKC