Page 10 - DTPA Journal December 21
P. 10
e Journal
eJournal
Nov. - Dec., 2021
lands. However, later he had retracted immovable or movable properties from
his statement. A.O. issued notice under his residence in support of the amount of
section 153C and initiated proceedings disclosure which was later on retracted but
against assessee and made additions not accepted by the department. The
under section 69C. High Court held that Tribunal observed: “…It is true that
since seized documents did not belong to simple denial cannot be considered as a
assessee but were seized from residential denial in the eyes of law but at the same
premises of one Mr. DD who had later time it is also to be seen (that) the material
retracted his statement, no action under and valuables and other assets are found at
section 153C could be undertaken in the time of search. The evidence ought to
case of assessee. It further held that since have been collected by the revenue
entire decision was based on seized during the search in support of the
documents and there was no material to disclosure statement.” The retraction
conclusively show that huge amounts was held valid.
revealed from seized documents were h) S.R. Koshti v. CIT [2005] 193 CTR (Guj.)
actually transferred from one side to 518: If assessee under a mistake,
another, additions under section 69C misconception or on not being properly
were not sustainable. SLP of Revenue instructed, is over assessed, the
was dismissed.
authorities are required to assist him
f) Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1977] 106 and ensure that only legitimate taxes
ITR 64 (HP): It was held that it is true that due are collected. The decision in CIT v.
an admission made by an assessee Durga Prasad More [1973] CTR (SC)
constitutes a relevant piece of evidence but 500, was followed i.e., test of human
if the assessee contends that in making probabilities. The High Court said “We
the admission he had proceeded on a do not find any material on record on
mistaken understanding or on which basis it can be said that the
misconception of facts or on untrue facts disclosure of the assessee of Rs. 16 lakhs
such an admission cannot be relied upon is in accordance with law or in spirit of
without first considering the aforesaid section 132(4)…”.
contention.
i) CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
g) Asstt. CIT v. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2019] 102 taxmann.com 372
[2005] 148 Taxman 35 (Ahd. – Trib.) (Bombay)/[2020] 421 ITR 686 (Bombay)
(Mag.): Assessee stated in retraction that [SLP granted in [2020] 114 taxmann.com
during recording of statement he was 320 (SC)], the Appellate Authorities
under constant threat of penalty and allowed payments made to 'S', a
prosecution and was confused about consultant holding that there was
various questions asked by the search sufficient evidence justifying the
party about documents, papers, etc., of payments made and A.O. other than
other persons found from his premises. relying upon statement of 'S' recorded
He declared the sum under pressure in search had no independent material
which was evident from the fact that no to make disallowance. The CIT (Appeal)
such corroborative evidence, asset or and Tribunal concurrently held that 'S'
valuables were found in form of retracted his statement within a short time
6
e-JOURNAL
e-JOURNAL
