Search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises of the assessee-group i.e. Bhusan Power & Steel Group (“BSPL” for short) along with residential/ business premises of its directors and other related entities/ persons on 3.3.2010 and 21.2.2014 for A.Y.2014-15.Addition in case of Mr Ajay Singal amounting to Rs 133 crore made for AY 2011-12 , 2013-14 & 2014-15 on account of alleged LTCG . Similar addition in case of Smr Arti sIngal amounting to Rs 170.51 crore also made . Additions w.r.t the transactions resulting in exempt LTCG have been made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. in the case of Sanjay Singal, he has voluntarily disclosed Rs.250 crores on account of bogus long term capital gain in the statement made under section 132(4) of the Act for the search carried out on 21 & 27-2-2014. The Ld DR argued that this disclosure was made by Shri Sanjay Singal on his behalf as well as on behalf of entire family. Therefore, he is bound with his disclosure which was not retracted. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the assessee made reference to CBDT Circular Bearing no.286/2003 dated 103.2003 which has been further explained in the subsequent circulars. This type of declaration later on retracted by the assessee nor honoured in the return filed by them, and the department failed to corroborate such disclosure. No doubt, the disclosure or admission made under section 132(4) of the Act during the course of search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not conclusive one. This presumption of admissibility of evidence is a rebuttable one, and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or based on misconception of facts, then solely on the basis of such admission no addition is required to be made.

HELD: After going through well reasoned order in the light of material brought to our notice, we are of the view that issue in dispute in all these appeals is squarely covered by order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Brij Bhusan Singal and others (supra), and hold that the long term capital gain declared by the assessee and claimed as exempt under section 10(38) are to be treated as genuine and they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.

ITAT Chandigarg- Shri Sanjay Singal vs DCIT, Cent.Cir.1,Chandigarh

ITA Appeal no – ITA Nos.708, 710, 711,/Chd/2018, A.Ys.2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15, 714, 716 and

717/Chd/2018 A.Ys. 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15, 718 and 719/Chd/2018 A.Ys.2013-14 and A.Y.2014-15