Kantilal C.Shah, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 1 June, 2011
4.1. The decision of Rajesh Jain vs. Dy.CIT reported at 100
TTJ 929 (Delhi) was relied upon by the ld.AR but this decision also
appears to be misplaced primarily because of the reason that the
search was conducted on that assessee on 20th July-2000 and the
operation of the bank accounts and other relevant material, such as,
computer server were either seized or restrained to operate. The
restrain continued from July-2000 to Feb-2001. Thereupon, on 12th
February-2001 a confessional statement of the said assessee was
recorded. On those circumstances, it was found by the Respected
Coordinate Bench that the adhoc disclosure as per the belated
confessional statement was not based upon the material available at
the time of search. As against that, in the present appeal, there was
no gap between the date of the search and the statement recorded of
this appellant on 12/12/1995. As per the copy of the statement
u/s.132(4) it is evident that the same was recorded at 12'O clock on
the day of search on 12/12/1995.