Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
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.
2 to 88/PAN/2022 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.87/PAN/2022 for the assessment year 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addition can be made based on mere statement of an assessee during the course of survey proceedings and the statement was retracted subsequently.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.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.
It is contended that no addition can be made mere a statement of an assessee without bringing any corroborative material on record.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is a speaking order and requires no interference.
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.