- (1.) ALL these nine appeals, arise out of the same judgment of the learned Tribunal dt. 13th Jan., 2004, passed with reference to different assessees, and for different assessment years. However, they have all been admitted, by framing common questions of law as under: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally justified in dismissing the appeal of the Department and upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the (AC) on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land by the assessee? 2. Whether the learned Tribunal has erred in law in reversing the finding recorded by the learned AO that in the transaction of land in question, the sale consideration received was a sum of Rs. 61,00,000, as against Rs. 9,00,000 on the basis of admission of the seller corroborated by independent witnesses and material on record? 3. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are contrary to record and perverse?
(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the precise facts are that the AO made the assessment, and while so making assessment, found that certain land was sold to Bhanwarlal by Shri Suresh Soni, by registered sale deed, which sale deed was registered for a consideration of Rs. 9 lacs. However, the Department on its own investigation, found that the sale was effected for a price of Rs. 61 lacs and, therefore, relying on the material, collected during investigation, made additions of different amounts in the assessment of different assessees, while some assessments were made as protective assessments also. The assessees filed appeals before the learned CIT, who partly allowed the appeals, and deleted the additions made. Against that, the Revenue filed appeals before the learned Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal dismissed all the appeals. A look at the judgment of the learned Tribunal shows, that in para 13, it has been observed as under: 13. These additions were made, admittedly, on the sole statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, the vendor. The said Shri Suresh Kumar Soni retracted from the statement and almost tried to prove that these statements were extracted from him under duress and pressure. We also agree with the finding of the learned CIT(A) in this regard because of the following reasons: (a) A retracted statement of any person cannot be made the sole basis for addition because an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence. But it cannot be stated that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. Needless to say that this is the law laid by the Highest Court of this country in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. : [1973]91ITR18(SC) .... Then, even giving apart other reasons, reason (g) has again been given as under: (g) There is no evidence on record which can prove that any amount was paid to this appellant except the retracted statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Soni.
(3.) THUS , the entire case was sought to be hanged by the Revenue on the peg of statement of Shri Suresh Kumar Soni, said to have been recorded from time to time, who had given varying statements, at different times. Learned AO also relied upon certain statements, said to have, been recorded by the Asstt. Director of IT, of Amar Chand, Bhanwarlal and Radhey Shyam, but then, no reliance was placed on those statements by the learned Tribunal.;