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':
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the basis of the material on record; the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the addition of Rs. 15,000, Rs. 30,000 each in the assessment' years 1985–86 to 1987–88 could be made merely on the basis-of the statement tendered during the survey without there, being any documentary evidence or material suggesting such income?”
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.
4. 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 assessee 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.
5. Learned counsel for the assessee-applicant contended that the assessee having retracted the statement made during the survey, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to collect some material that there was additional income and that statement having been retracted the same could not be made the basis of the assessment. He urged that the statement was recorded under duress and was, therefore not valid.
6. What was the nature of the duress has not been specified before us and has also not been stated in the applications under consideration. The Tribunal's finding is that no pressure or duress was exercised on the assessee. This is a finding of fact. That in the statement during the survey the assessee had offered additional income as mentioned above, is admitted even in the present applications in paragraph 1 thereof.
7. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted the Assessing Officer should have independently come to a conclusion that there was additional income as sought to be assessed and that there was no material to support that there was such income, this contention in our view is not correct. As held by the Supreme Court in Pullan-gode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, [1973] 91 ITR 18 an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee retracted the statement could not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income. This burden does not even seem to have been attempted to be discharged. Similarly, P. It Palwankar v. CGT, [1979] 117 ITR 768 (MP) and CIT v. Mrs. Doris S. Luiz, [1974] 96 ITR 646 (Ker) on which also learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance are of no help to the assessee. The Tribunal's order is concluded by findings of fact and in our view no question of law arises. The applications are, accordingly, rejected.