MRS SMITA NATARAJ HADIMANI,BELAGAVI vs. ITO, WARD - 1, BELAGAVI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 87/PAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 December 2022AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made based solely on an assessee's statement without corroborative material. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

What were the facts?

During a survey, the assessee offered a sum as undisclosed income. The assessment was completed based on this statement, which the assessee later retracted. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's contention that no addition can be made solely on a retracted statement.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition to income can be made based solely on a statement given during survey proceedings without corroborative evidence, especially when the statement is retracted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Ulhas Kini
For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Hearing: 24.11.2022Pronounced: 09.12.2022

ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.07.2022 for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

1.

2 to 88/PAN/2022 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in 2013-14 are stated herein. ITA No.87/PAN/2022, A.Y. 2013-14 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income from Wine Shop. The regular Return of Income was not filed u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). A survey action u/s 133A was conducted in the business premises of the appellant on 06.03.2017. During the course of survey proceedings, the appellant offered a sum of Rs.20,19,286/- as “undisclosed income”. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 and completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Belgavi (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.20,19,870/-. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that no addition can be made based on mere statement of an assessee during the course of survey proceedings and the statement was retracted subsequently. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the said contention of the appellant 3 ITA Nos.87 to 88/PAN/2022 by holding that the appellant had not given any explanation for retraction of the disclosure of the statement.

5.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

6.

It is contended that no addition can be made mere a statement of an assessee without bringing any corroborative material on record.

7.

On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a speaking order and requires no interference.

8.

I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee challenges the addition made on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings. It is a trite law that no addition can be made on the basis of mere statement of an assessee without bringing any corroborative material on record. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires remission to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue in appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →