Synthetic Colour Chem Industries Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The survey was conducted on 18.2.2005 when the loose papers being the pages 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 were found which had been duly signed by the partner of the assessee firm based on entries and based on the said papers the partner of the assessee had declared undisclosed income of Rs.1.05 crores. Subsequently on 4.3.2005, a fortnight after the date of survey, the assessee had written a letter to the AO in which a request had been made that instalments may be granted for payment of additional tax. However, 6 months later when the return was filed, a retraction statement was enclosed alleging that the partner had been forced to admit additional income and in fact no incriminating papers were found.
These claims have been rejected by the authorities below as an after thought. We see no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the revenue authorities on this point. In case, the partner had really been forced to admit additional income and papers were cooked up, by the survey party, the assessee would have immediately after survey complained to the higher authorities. The Learned AR for the assessee admitted that no complaint had been filed by the assessee. In fact two weeks after the date of survey the assessee had written a letter dated 4.3.2005 to the AO requesting for instalment and even in this letter no allegation was made. The loose papers found have been duly signed by the partners and these clearly gave the details of unaccounted sales and unaccounted commission. Under these circumstances the affidavits filed retracting the statement and making allegations six months later has to be treated as a self serving statement by the partner and his employees and this has to be rejected as an afterthought.