COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Ranchi dated 24.12.1996 by which, the appeal of the Assessee preferred against the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the year 1994 -95 was partly allowed to the extent which shall be discussed herein below and against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 4.4.2000 confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 24.12.1996.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there was voluntary disclosure by the Assessee at the time of search and seizure and his statement was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the Assessee himself disclosed that he has undisclosed income of Rs. 7 lakhs and he admitted that out of Rs. 7 lakhs Rs. 4 lakhs have been invested in the stock of M/s Moolchand Jain and Sons and some amounts have been given to some persons as loans. Further he has disclosed the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs out of Rs. 7 lakhs as disclosed in his statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been deposited in different Saving Bank Account of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the C.I.T.(A) as well as the Tribunal committed serious error of law by ignoring the fact that the alleged retraction of the Assessee was led in evidence during the course of the hearing before the Assessing Officer but since that was after delay of more than two years, therefore, such retraction statement has no value and should have been rejected.