2018 (9) TMI 2165 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's reliance on MD's unsworn search statement cannot quantify undisclosed scrap sales; depreciation under section 32 allowed

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Circle Kolhapur, Versus Ghatge Patil Industries Limited And Ghatge Patil Industries Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Circle, Kolhapur

ITAT PUNE - AT held that the Revenue's reliance on the MD's unsworn statement during search to quantify undisclosed scrap sales was unsustainable absent ... Disallowance on account of sale of scrap - disclosure made by MD of the company during the search and seizure action - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute on the fact that assessee offered Rs. 2 crores per year for all the 4 assessment years under consideration during the search and seizure action - Statement recorded during the search and seizure action in the absence of any independent and corroborating/incriminating material is not to be relied upon. Assessee offered the undisclosed income to the extent the corroborating evidences were seized. It is not the case of the AO that total sum is backed up by such incriminating material. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that factually the assessee offered the income to the extent the seized material was available and not otherwise. AO’s attempt to make the differential amounts of undisclosed strictly relying on the sworn statement of MD of the company is unsustainable considering the written submission of the assessee and the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ld. [2025 (6) TMI 2058 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Therefore, we hold that the relief granted by the CIT(A) in his order is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the common ground raised by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal has to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Depreciation made u/s. 32 on building occupied by MD - assessee submitted that the said building was occupied by MD of the company and it is a perquisite value - HELD THAT:- It is only inference that the asset is put to use by the assessee for the business purposes of the assessee. Therefore, in our view, the claim of the assessee is fair and reasonable. We reverse the finding of AO/CIT(A) on this issue making assessee eligible for claim of depreciation on this asset. Accordingly, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether additions to income can be sustained on the basis of statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act alone, in absence of corroborative seized material, where the assessee has offered undisclosed income to the extent of seized material during search and subsequent returns under section 153A? 2. Whether estimation/extrapolation of unaccounted income from sale of scrap beyond amounts evidenced by seized papers is permissible where books are audited and manufacturing records accepted and no systematic pattern of suppression is shown? 3. Whether an upward valuation by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) of cost of construction, producing a differential of c.13.43% over booked cost, justifies addition u/s. 69/69B in search-related assessments? 4. Whether depreciation under section 32 is allowable to the assessee for a building owned by the assessee but occupied by its managing director where the occupant has offered the perquisite value to tax? ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Reliance on Section 132(4) statement without corroboration Legal framework: Statement recorded u/s. 132(4) has evidentiary value but its weight depends on corroboration; assessments under search require evaluation of material found during search and other relevant material; CBDT guidance discourages obtaining confessions during search and mandates reliance on material. Precedent Treatment: Tribunal and High Court authorities recognize that a retracted statement loses strength and cannot by itself sustain additions; where statement is retracted, AO must support findings by independent material; decisions cited by parties support the proposition that additions only on statement without corroboration are unsustainable. Interpretation and reasoning: The statement of the managing person admitted additional undisclosed income of Rs. 8 crores spread over four years, but seized papers did not corroborate the entire sum and the assessee offered/returned undisclosed income to the extent of seized slips/vouchers. The AO based differential additions principally on the retracted 132(4) statement without independent material showing systematic suppression. The Tribunal evaluated the nature and content of seized papers (cash vouchers, non-continuous dates, IOU-like entries) and manufacturing/books records accepted by AO; concluded that reliance solely on the retracted statement resulted in estimation unsupported by relevant material. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A 132(4) statement, if retracted and not supported by corroborative seized material or other independent evidence, cannot alone sustain an addition in assessments arising from search; Obiter - observations on CBDT circulars and general cautionary remarks about confessions during search. Conclusion: Addition founded solely on the 132(4) statement without corroboration is unsustainable; relief deleting such addition is upheld. Issue 2 - Extrapolation/estimation of scrap sales beyond seized material Legal framework: AO may estimate undisclosed income on the basis of relevant material, including circumstantial evidence and patterns of transactions, but estimation must be based on rational nexus to facts and not be arbitrary; assessment power is not fettered by strict rules of evidence but quantum must have factual basis. Precedent Treatment: Authorities permit extrapolation where seized material discloses systematic suppression or where short-period detection reasonably indicates unaccounted transactions for whole year; conversely, where no pattern appears and books/manufacturing records accepted, extrapolation is inappropriate. Interpretation and reasoning: Records showed scrap sales as percentage of turnover for earlier years (approx. 1%) and higher percentages in impugned years; however no consistent pattern of omissions or systematic practice (e.g., periodic bills kept outside books) was evident from seized material; manufacturing accounts audited and accepted, burning loss and other manufacturing metrics did not reveal abnormalities; no unexplained lifestyle or investments indicated further unaccounted receipts. The AO did not apply a consistent methodology or justify why estimates for later years should exceed earlier-year benchmarks. The CIT(A) found AO's quantification arbitrary and lacking nexus to relevant facts. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Estimation beyond seized material is impermissible where seized material and records do not establish a pattern or basis for extrapolation and books/manufacturing records are dependable; Obiter - discussion of comparative percentages and industry norms as context. Conclusion: Extrapolative additions on scrap sales beyond amounts evidenced by seized papers were arbitrary and cannot be sustained; deletion of additional quantums is warranted. Issue 3 - DVO valuation differential (approx. 13.43%) and addition u/s. 69/69B Legal framework: DVO valuation u/s. 142A may be used to test declarations; where DVO finds higher value, AO may invoke unexplained investment provisions (ss. 69/69B) if difference is unexplained or incriminating material exists. Precedent Treatment: Coordinated Tribunal decisions have held that small differentials (around or below c.15%) between books and DVO valuation, especially when DVO applies differing rate schedules (e.g., CPWD vs. PWD) or omits allowances (self-supervision deduction), do not justify additions; where earlier co-ordinate bench decisions on same property have deleted additions, subsequent years should follow absent contrary material. Interpretation and reasoning: Differential (c.13.43%) arose where DVO applied CPWD rates and did not grant self-supervision deduction; no incriminating evidence relating to construction cost was found during search; co-ordinate bench had earlier deleted similar addition for same property and reasons (rate selection, deduction) equally applicable. Revenue produced no distinguishing material to rebut earlier coordinate decisions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A DVO-assessed uplift of modest magnitude (here ~13.43%) that results from choice of rate tables or non-allowance of customary deductions does not automatically convert declared expenditure into unexplained investment; such differential does not, by itself, justify addition where books are otherwise regular and there is no incriminating material; Obiter - notes on allocation across assessment years under s. 69B. Conclusion: Addition based on the DVO differential is unsustainable; deletion of amounts apportioned to the impugned years is appropriate following co-ordinate bench precedent. Issue 4 - Depreciation claim on building occupied by managing director who offered perquisite Legal framework: Depreciation u/s. 32 is allowable on assets used for business purposes; where an asset owned by the assessee is put to use for business, and perquisite value arising from occupancy by an employee/MD is offered to tax, that indicates business use. Precedent Treatment: Allowance of depreciation depends on legal ownership and use for business; where perquisite is taxed in hands of employee, the asset's use can be regarded as for business and depreciation claim permitted. Interpretation and reasoning: Asset is owned by the assessee; MD occupies it and has offered perquisite value to tax. Those facts point to asset being put to use for the assessee's business (perquisite acknowledged). Absence of formal agreement/board resolution does not negate business use where tax treatment of perquisite has been accepted by occupant; AO and CIT(A) disallowed claim on formalistic grounds, but Tribunal inferred business use from ownership and taxable perquisite admission. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Depreciation is allowable where the asset is owned by the assessee and is put to use for business; acceptance by the occupant of perquisite value supports inference of business use and permits depreciation claim despite lack of formal agreement; Obiter - comments on temporary residence and business meetings. Conclusion: Depreciation allowable; disallowance by AO/CIT(A) reversed and depreciation claim admitted. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 1. Additions and estimates based solely on a retracted statement u/s. 132(4), without corroborative seized material or independent evidence of systematic suppression, cannot be sustained; Revenue appeals dismissed on this ground. 2. Extrapolative additions for scrap sales beyond amounts evidenced by seized papers and unsupported by manufacturing records or patterns are arbitrary and deleteable. 3. Minor valuation differentials from DVO (c.13.43%), arising from methodological choices and lacking incriminating evidence, do not justify additions under unexplained investment provisions; corresponding additions deleted following co-ordinate decisions. 4. Depreciation under section 32 is allowable where the assessee owns the building and the MD's occupational perquisite has been offered to tax, supporting business use; depreciation claim sustained.