S C GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three applications under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), praying that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, be directed to state a case and refer the following identical question stated to be of law and to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated September 29, 1995, passed in I.T.A. Nos. 3806, 3807 and 3808/Del of 1993, for the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 for the opinion of this court :

(2.) We have heard Sri Vikram Gulati, learned counsel for the assessee-applicant, and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Commissioner-respondent.

(3.) The assessee is a medical practitioner and had filed returns for the aforesaid years which were accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act. On August 18, 1987, the Assessing Officer conducted a survey at the premises of the assessee and, inter alia, recorded his statement in which the asses-see surrendered additional income of Rs. 15,000 for the assessment year 1985-86 and Rs. 30,000 for each of the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88. Pursuant to the survey, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for these years under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and proceeded to assess the aforesaid additional amounts. It appears that during the assessment proceedings the assessee did not accept the additional income and contended that his statement during the survey was the result of duress. This contention was not accepted and the matter was carried by the assessee in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who took the view that apart from the statement made during the survey there was no material to support that there was additional income and that there was force in the assessee's contention that the statement was recorded by force and there was no independent witness at the time of recording of the statement and the statement was not recorded on oath. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, deleted the aforesaid amounts. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the statement made during the survey was a valid statement made without any duress and, therefore, the additional income was rightly assessed.