Survey statement under Section 133A is only corroborative; unexplained investment addition stands when source is not satisfactorily explained.

A statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A has evidentiary value, but it is not conclusive and may be retracted or explained by the assessee. It cannot, by itself, be the sole basis for an addition; it may only corroborate other surrounding material. On the facts, the assessee failed to produce reliable evidence that the investment was made by the company rather than in a personal capacity, and the books did not reflect a company investment. The addition as unexplained investment under Section 69 was therefore sustained, and the assessee did not discharge the burden of explaining the source of funds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statement on oath recorded from an assessee during survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has evidentiary value and can be treated as conclusive; (ii) whether tax assessment can be made solely on the basis of such sworn statement; and (iii) whether the addition as unexplained investment under Section 69 was justified on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether a statement on oath recorded from an assessee during survey proceedings under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has evidentiary value and can be treated as conclusive.

Analysis: Section 133A authorises recording of statements during survey, but unlike Section 132(4), it does not specifically confer power to examine a person on oath. Even so, a statement recorded during survey is not devoid of all evidentiary value merely because it was taken on oath. Such a statement is not conclusive and the maker is free to explain or retract it. It may be used as material in assessment and may corroborate other evidence.

Conclusion: The statement had evidentiary value, but it was not conclusive and could be retracted or explained by the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether tax assessment can be made solely on the basis of such sworn statement.

Analysis: A survey statement under Section 133A cannot, by itself, sustain an assessment. It may support or corroborate other materials, but the assessment must rest on the overall evidentiary record. Where independent materials such as documents and surrounding circumstances exist, the sworn statement can reinforce them, but it cannot be the sole foundation for addition.

Conclusion: Assessment solely on the basis of the sworn statement was impermissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition as unexplained investment under Section 69 was justified on the facts.

Analysis: The assessee admitted payment of advance for the property, but failed to produce any reliable material to show that the investment was made by the company and not in his personal capacity. The books of account did not reflect the transaction as a company investment. In proceedings under Section 69, the burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investment. On the facts, the explanation was not accepted and the surrounding documents supported the addition.

Conclusion: The addition as unexplained investment was justified and stood against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The court upheld the assessment and declined interference with the tribunal's factual findings, holding that the survey statement was only corroborative and that the assessee failed to discharge the burden regarding the source of the investment.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement recorded during survey under Section 133A is not conclusive and cannot, by itself, form the sole basis of an addition, but it may be used as corroborative material along with other evidence; where the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source of an investment, addition under Section 69 is sustainable.

---