Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 v. Associated Plastic Indus

C/TAXAP/72/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 72 of 2018 ==========================================================PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6VersusASSOCIATED PLASTIC INDUS. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1NISARG H VYAS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA Date : 28/02/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 21.10.2016 raising following questions for our consideration: “1.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT had erred in law in holding that the evidentiary value of the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act is completely extinguished when the assessee has retracted his statement? 2.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law and on facts by accepting the retraction even when the assessee did not bring anything concrete to demonstrate that the said statement was not made voluntarily? 3.Whether the Hon'ble ITAT had erred in law and on facts by no appreciating that the probative value of the statement made u/s. 132(4) did not diminish on its retraction as it was based on material seized? 4.Whether decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is perverse as it has ignored relevant material in the form of seized documents and statement made u/s. 132(4) which is an admissible piece of evidence in all proceeding under the Act? 5.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22 lacs made on account of unexplained stock fund from Vasai Godown? 6.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition o Rs. 18 lacs made on accountof unexplained investment in Ruvagam village? 7.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 50 lacs made on account of estimated profits and unaccounted initial investment recorded in the rough cash books as unaccounted business transactions? 8.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 14,95,500/- (Total Rs. 34,95,500/-) being unexplained expenditure noted on loose papers file? 9.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,54,859/-, Rs. 20,43,555/-, Rs. 4,67,690/-, Rs. 16,35,574/- and Rs. 1,75,353/- made on the basis of nothings? 10.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,78,875/- being unexplained expenditure? 11.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6 lacs being unexplained expenditure? 12.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,350/- and Rs. 90,000/- being unexplained expenditure? 13.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- being advance given to Nitin A Sanghvi? 14.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,35,125/- being unexplained income?” 10.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,78,875/- being unexplained expenditure? 11.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 6 lacs being unexplained expenditure? 12.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,82,350/- and Rs. 90,000/- being unexplained expenditure? 13.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,10,000/- being advance given to Nitin A Sanghvi? 14.Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,35,125/- being unexplained income?” 2. First set of questions 1 to 4 pertains to evidentiary value of the statements during the search made by the partner of the firm under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which were later on retracted. Revenue's contention is that the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal erred in not giving due weightage to such statements which were voluntarily made. The evidentiary value and the assessment of materials on record including the statements would essentially be a question of fact. Remaining questions pertain to individual additions made by the Assessing Officer but deleted by the CIT (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Tribunal. We have gone through the record. Counsel for the Revenue had painstakingly taken us through the finidngs of the Assessing Officer, of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal on each individual issue. It is not necessary to discuss threadbare the observations and conclusions of the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Suffice it to record, upon perusal of the materials on record, we are satisfied that all deletions are based on evidence on record. CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal were concurrent in their conclusions with respect to the assessment of such materials. Essentially all deletions are based on facts. 3. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. (AKIL KURESHI, J.) JYOTI V. JANI (B.N. KARIA, J.)