Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Sh. Harmesh Kumar Rs.5.00 Cr including Cash of 8.30 lacs..

4. M/s Shiva Cold Storage Rs.30 lacs including Cash of 9.00 lacs.

5. M/s Shiva Agri. Farm Rs. 50 lacs including Cash of 5.20 lacs.

TOTAL Rs. 16 Cr.

7. The AO has discussed that the aforesaid disclosure was made in various entities on the basis of various documents seized/impounded during the course of survey proceedings, and on the facts that the proper books of accounts were not maintained, nor the same were completely written to explain the said discrepancies found during the survey, including the unaccounted cash of Rs.8.25 lacs found in the premises of the assessee and thus, the undisclosed income computed based on the ITA Nos. 40 to 42/Asr/2018 Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors impounded documents as above. The AO stated that disclosure of income was made by the appellant over and above the regular income of the year under consideration which had no bearing on the income determined for the earlier years, however, the assessee has claimed the credit for the same in its return of income. The AO being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee regarding the not declaration of the surrendered income in the return of income without corroborative documentary evidences and even without any retraction, he held it as attempt to suppress the undisclosed income offered for tax as additional income over and above the regular income for the year under consideration during the search and survey action and accordingly, he has made addition of the surrendered income of Rs.4,60,57,700/- to the return income of the assessee.

4.12 The AO as well as the appellant have reiterated their contentions in the remand report and in the counter comments. I have carefully considered the ITA Nos. 40 to 42/Asr/2018 Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors ITA Nos. 40 to 42/Asr/2018 Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors documents impounded at the time of survey. These facts have not been denied by the AO in the remand report. Further, re-assessment proceedings for other years have also been initiated based on the documents found at the time of survey.

9. Per contra, the ld. DR vehemently supported the assessment order.

He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,60,57,700/- made on the basis of voluntary surrendered in view of the incriminating documents impounded during the course of survey without appreciating that surrender was further reaffirmed by the assessee and was never retracted. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the said addition will amount to double taxation as a separate additions have been made in assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 based on the impounded documents ignoring the fact that the ITA Nos. 40 to 42/Asr/2018 Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors surrendered amount has never been assigned by the assessee to those years and the ld. CIT(A) has not substantiated while allowing the claim of the assessee. He contended that CIT(A) has not considered the incriminating documentary evidences being impounded and forming the basis for the disputed disclosure of the surrendered amount over and above, the income declared and shown in the regular return of income filed by the assessee. The ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of Hoh'ble Court of Allahabad in the case of Sanjeev Agarwal v. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner [2015] 56 taxmann.com [2014] (Alld.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that even those the statement by the assessee during the survey regarding undisclosed investment was not given oath, same could not be retracted on whims and fancy. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:

CIT(A)'s finding are self-contradictory as on the one hand, he has stated considering same documents as credible evidence that in respect of Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10, the AO has made addition of Rs.1,97,08,128/- and Rs.93,67,668/- respectively based on the said impounded incriminating documents found during the course of survey and on the other hand he observed that the issue of confession of additional income/surrender income was without any creditable evidence. Such type of observation of the ld. CIT(A) per se proves that he has not gone through the material evidence, incriminating document found and seized/impounded and not analyzed the actual facts of the case in the light of incriminating documents impounded during the course of survey which is forming basis of the surrender of the undisclosed income by the appellant over and above the regular return of income which is further followed by letter rather any retraction. The case law relied by the CIT(A) and reiterated ITA Nos. 40 to 42/Asr/2018 Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors in the written submission by the AR are distinguishable on peculiar facts of the instant case