9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 554 - HC - Income TaxAddition based on statement recorded u/s 133A - tribunal held that on the basis of the statement of the director Shri Saurabh N. Garg alone, the AO cannot come to the conclusion that the assessee has issued accommodation bills and reject the books of account of the assessee - HELD THAT - Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son 2007 (7) TMI 182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT concluded that statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act is not given any evidentiary value and that materials or information found in the course of survey proceedings could not be a basis for making any addition; besides materials collected and statement obtained under Section 133A would not automatically bind upon the assessee. The above decision of the Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Revenue in CIT Vs.S. Khader Khan Son 2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER - Decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee issued accommodation bills based solely on the director's statement? 2. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider circumstantial evidence while making its decision? 3. Whether the Tribunal's order is perverse and gives rise to a question of law? 4. Whether the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the director's statement and circumstantial evidence regarding interest income assessment? Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in precious stones, was not involved in issuing accommodation bills. The Tribunal emphasized that the imports and sales were conducted through proper channels, with payments made via cheques. The Tribunal highlighted that the statement of the director alone was insufficient to conclude that accommodation bills were issued. The Tribunal emphasized that no incriminating evidence was found during the survey, and the director's statement, not recorded on oath, lacked evidentiary value. Issue 2: The Tribunal considered the evidentiary value of the director's statement and the circumstantial evidence provided by the assessee, such as bank statements, ledger copies, purchase invoices, and confirmations. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted substantial documentation to prove the genuineness of transactions, which the Assessing Officer had overlooked. The Tribunal concluded that the director's statement, recorded after the survey, was not a sufficient basis for making additions to the income without further corroborative evidence. Issue 3: The High Court referenced a Madras High Court decision that stated a statement recorded under Section 133A of the Act does not hold evidentiary value. The High Court affirmed that materials gathered during a survey operation could not automatically lead to additions in the assessment. The High Court stressed that materials collected during a survey do not conclusively bind the assessee. Consequently, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal. Issue 4: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the director's statement alone was insufficient to establish the issuance of accommodation bills. The High Court highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the lack of incriminating evidence during the survey. The High Court reiterated that materials collected during a survey do not automatically lead to additions in the assessment. As a result, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision for all the related assessment years.
|
