Income Tax

Retraction of statement cannot be made even without any strong supporting evidence and mere mention of ill health not sufficient to disprove the contents of nine month old statement

By TG Team Income Tax Judiciary October 16, 2011

TaxGuru Citation: 2011 taxguru.in 1022
Case Name: Shri Kantilal C. Shah Vs. The Asst. CIT Circle- 3 (ITAT Ahemdabad)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year: 1985- 95
Courts: ITAT Ahmedabad

Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Shri Kantilal C. Shah Vs. The Asst. CIT Circle- 3 –

ITAT Ahemdabad

IT (SS) A No. 21/AHD/2009

Block Period: 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 &

1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995

O R D E R

PER SHRI MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

This is an appeal at the behest of the Assessee which has emanated from an assessment order passed u/s. 158BC/143(3) r.w.s.254 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 24.12.2008 and the grounds which have been argued before us are as follows:-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 1,30,700/- during the year 01/04/1994 to 31/03/1995 in respect of marriage expenditure of daughter of the Appellant though no evidence in respect of incurring such expenditure was found during the search.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- during the year 01/04/1994 to 31/03/1995 by way of investment in the shares made by Diwaliben Chhotalal, Chhotalal Gulabchand, Pukhraj Chhotalal and Kaveriben Pukhraj to the total income of the Appellant though investment of shares was not made in the name of the Appellant and some of the persons are assessed to income-tax.

3. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 45,000/- by way of unexplained household expenditure for the block year 01/04/1994 to 31/03/1 995 though no evidence of incurring such expenditure was found during the search.

4. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 20,000/- by way of investment in NSC for the block period 01/04/1995 to 1 2/1 2/1995 though no evidence in respect of such investment from undisclosed source was found during the period search.

5. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- in respect of payment of on-money for purchase of flat and addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- in respect of unaccounted investment in furniture during the block period 01/04/1995 to 1 2/12/1995 though no such evidences were found during the search.

2. Before we proceed to decide the merits of the case, it is worth to place on record that in the past, as well, this appellant had gone in appeal before the Tribunal and at that time contested that proper opportunity of hearing was not granted. The Respected Coordinate Bench had considered the said request of providing a re-hearing , therefore vide an order dated 22/03/2005,in IT(SS)A Nos. 60, 61 & 62/Ahd/1997 (Block assessment period 1-4-1985 to 12-12-1991) titled as Shri Ambalal K.Shah & Others vs. Dy.CIT, had restored the matter back to the AO with the direction to grant adequate opportunity and to decide accordingly. The impugned assessment order now under appeal has been passed following the directions of the Tribunal.