Chandra Mohan Garg ORDER
Chandra Mohan Garg, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Sambalpur dated 29.8.2019 for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:
"1. For that the order passed by the ld. below forum suffers vice of illegality and arbitrariness;
2. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. below forum has grossly erred in making additions of Rs. 19,41,740/- on the basis of writing on loose sheets and admission extracted under coercion and under influence during the course of survey proceedings;
3. For that the additions are not backed by any cohesive primary and circumstantial evidence as to its nature and its source. The persons from whom receipts have been purported to be made are unidentifiable, not-existent and are thus a sham and imaginary transaction;
4. For that the ld. below forum has not applied his mind judicial conclude to the case;
5. For that the survey proceedings u/s. 133A of the IT Act, 1961 itself have been conducted in a manner defying instruction and circulars of CBDT which is binding upon all its subordinates;
6. For that the survey proceedings and assessment proceedings have been headed by same official. The assessment thus made is biased and unjustified and therefore bad in the eyes of law;
7. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. below forum has erred in considering the interest of Rs. 42,771/- on the basis of form 26AS without verification from bank."
3. Ground Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 are general in nature.
4. In Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 19,41,740/- on the basis of material found during the course of survey.
5. Facts of the case are that a survey action u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted on 18.1.2012 at the business premises of the assessee. During the course of survey, certain documents were found that the assessee has received Rs. 7,23,452/-, from Maa Ambe Enterprises, Jharsuguda, Rs. 5,76,291/- from Unicon Tech Co. Jharkhand and Rs. 6,41,997/- from Sundaram Technical Services, Barpali totaling to Rs. 19,41,740/- in the name of Shreshta Nirman, prop. Concern of the assessee. During the course of survey, statement of assessee was recorded wherein, he has admitted to be the same as undisclosed income and advance tax of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid. Later on during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has stated that undisclosed income was made under duress and coercion and claimed refund of the same while filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and observed that the statement during the assessment proceedings that the confession of undisclosed income is under duress is an afterthought. He, therefore, treated Rs. 19,61,740/- as undisclosed income and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
6. In first appeal, the action of the AO was confirmed.
7. Ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, books of account alongwith bills and vouchers were produced and same were test checked. He submitted that the assessee has not made any transaction with the three parties as claimed by the department. He submitted that during survey proceedings, income tax officers all of a sudden entered the business premises and made enquiries and compelled the assessee make statement that Rs. 19,61,740/- as his undisclosed income and statement was given under duress. Ld. A.R. referred to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 10.03.2003 which reads as follows:-
"Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessee have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search and seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assesses while filing returns of income. In these circumst........