| COURT: | ITAT Mumbai |
| CORAM: | Sandeep Gosain (JM), Shamim Yahya (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 132(4), 68 |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | admission of undisclosed income, retraction, search and seizure, Search assessment |
| COUNSEL: | Naresh Kumar |
| DATE: | November 15, 2017 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | December 2, 2017 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2010-11 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Undisclosed income found in search: Law on whether statement obtained u/s 132(4) admitting earning of undisclosed income, which is allegedly retracted, can be used for making assessment explained in the light of P.V. Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49 (SC), S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) and CBDT’s Circular | |
From the above, it is apparent that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s reliance upon the so called retraction of the admission during search is not cogent. Similarly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reliance upon the CBDT Circular of not obtaining confession is also out of place. It is clear that the registers were found which clearly detailed about undocumented surgeries performed by Dr. Ashok Chopra and unaccounted cash receipts. Based upon this Dr. Ashok Chopra has admitted offer of Rs.1.74 crores. Dr. Ashok Chopra had also accepted the working of this figure. As already noted there was never any retraction whatsoever by Dr. Ashok Chopra. The said admission of Dr. Ashok Chopra was also duly accepted and corroborated by Smt. Madhu Chopra, the director of the company. Under these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s contradictory acceptance that no incriminating documents were found, is not at all acceptable
Recent Comments