Loading judgment…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs M/S HALLMARK SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD., HOWRAH | BharatTax

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S HALLMARK SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD., HOWRAH

ITA 46/RAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 August 2025AY 2014-15Bench: S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)5 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

During a search in the Bhalotia group, the assessee offered Rs. 6 crores as additional income for AY 2014-15 in a statement, based on which the Assessing Officer made an addition. The CIT(A) subsequently deleted this addition, holding that it could not be made solely based on a statement without corroborative evidence, citing relevant judicial precedents.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, concluding that the Assessing Officer failed to provide any evidence beyond the assessee's statement to justify the addition. The Tribunal reiterated that income cannot be brought to tax merely on a statement unless corroborative evidence of earned income is found and a revised return is filed, neither of which occurred in this case.

Key Issues

Whether an addition to income, declared in a statement during a search, can be sustained without corroborative evidence or a revised return of income.

Sections Cited

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: BEFORE S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN & RATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAYRATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR

Hearing: 21/08/2025Pronounced: 21/08/2025

Date of Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2025 O R D E R Per Bench

This is an appeal filed by the revenue an appeal filed by the revenue against the ord against the order of the ld CIT(A)-Patna-3, dated 21.6.2021 in Appeal No.CIT(A) in Appeal No.CIT(A)Patna- 3/10628/2016-17 17, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Shri Devesh Poddar, Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Rajat essee. Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Ld CIT DR submitted that there was a search in the Ld CIT DR submitted that there was a search in the Bhalotia Bhalotia group of case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment case on 22.8.2013. It was the submission that in the course of assessment P a g e 1 | 5 proceedings, the assessee had filed a submission, wherein, the assessee had offered an amount of Rs.6 crores to be treated as additional income for the assessment year 2014-15. It was the submission that consequently, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.6 crores in the assessment. It was the submission that in the course of appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the said addition of Rs.6 crores and ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj) as also the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Benches in the case of Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) held that the addition cannot be made on the basis of a statement of submission of the director of the assessee company until and unless there is any corroborative evidence for the same. It was the submission that the assessee having offered the said income in the course of search, the addition is liable to be upheld. It was the prayer that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be reversed.

6.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order most specifically at page 2 para 4 shows that the Assessing Officer has extracted the statement given by the director of the assessee company in the form of statement. A perusal of the said statement shows that the assessee has clearly mentioned thereon that “ we beg to offer an addition al income of Rs.6,00,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15, which is offered for taxation by the assessee. In this respect, we beg to submit that there are certain debtors from whom we have to realize substantial amount. We are making this declaration of additional income voluntarily to have peace of mind and to avoid any litigation We also understand that since it s a voluntary disclosure of income, no penalty will be imposed. We may mention that the amount of tax payable shall be paid as soon as we can realize funds from our sundry debtors. In any case, we desire to offer, as mentioned earlier, the additional income of Rr.6,00,00,000/- for the A.Y. 2014-15.” Further, on perusal of the assessment order shows that other than this statement of the director of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not used any other evidences for making the addition. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) also shows that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the basis of the said fact that P a g e 3 | 5 there is no evidence of income being brought to tax on the basis of any seized documents or any evidence to suggest such income. The addition has been made only on the basis of the statement made by the assessee. The facts in the present case clearly shows that for the purpose of bringing any group income to tax, one of the primary requirement is the filing of revised return. Just because, the assessee makes a statement, the income cannot be brought to tax unless and until the Assessing Officer finds some evidences to show that the assessee has earned such income, which has not been disclosed in its return. The facts clearly shows that no such return has also been filed by the assessee disclosing the additional income of Rs. 6 crores. There is only one letter addressed to the Assessing Officer. The addition has also been made without reference to any incriminating material or otherwise to show that the assessee has earned such income during the impugned assessment year. This being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue insofar as the revenue has been unable to dislodge any of the findings of facts as arrived at by the ld CIT(A). This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld CIT(A) to interfere.