|
No assessment merely on retracted confession
The assessee had declared diamond jewelry under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (‘VDIS’). The said declaration was accepted by the department and a certificate was issued to the assessee under VDIS. In A.Y. 1998-1999, the assessee claimed to have sold the said jewelry declared under VDIS to M/s.Dhananjay Diamonds and thereby earned long term capital gains. The Income Tax authorities conducted a survey at M/s. Dhananjay Diamonds and recorded the statement of its proprietor, Mr. Trivedi, u/s 133A on 31.3.2000. Trivedi confessed that he was not doing actual business of trading in diamonds and that the transactions reflected in his books of accounts were merely accommodation entries given to various VDIS declarants. The said statement was retracted vide letter dated 4-4-2000 (received by A.O. on 17-4-2000). In view of the confession, the AO assessed the sale proceeds of jewelry as undisclosed income. The Tribunal, by a majority, deleted the addition. On appeal to the High Court, HELD, upholding the Tribunal’s order:
(i) The certificate issued under VDIS to the effect that the assessee had diamond jewellery continued to be valid and subsisting and no proceedings had been initiated to cancel the same. Accordingly, it was not open to the revenue to contend that there was no jewellery which could be sold by the assessee.
(ii) In view of the retraction of the statement and the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki V/s. UOI 2008 (16) Scale 31, the retracted confession can be relied upon only if there is independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the confession.
(iii) The Tribunal’s finding that the assessee has successfully shown the existence of diamond jewellery prior to the sale, the person to whom it is sold and also the consideration received could not be faulted.
Related Judgements
- CIT vs. Inder V. Nankani (Bombay High Court)
Where the assessee made a VDIS declaration in which diamonds were disclosed and he later claimed that the moneys received by him were the sale proceeds of the said diamonds which could not be taxed but the AO held that the sale was fictitious as the second purchaser to…
- Vinod Solanki vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
A person accused of commission of an offence is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the confession is voluntary in nature…
- Mahendra D. Jain vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)
Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result…


to download the file. You will need a PDF reader to view the files. You can download one for free from 
