Survey powers under section 133A are limited, and stock discrepancy alone may not justify an addition under section 69B.

A survey under section 133A does not authorise an Inspector to record statements on oath or prepare a stock inventory beyond the limited powers of inspection, copying and identification of documents; such actions are outside statutory authority. A stock discrepancy between books and survey findings, by itself, is insufficient to sustain an addition under section 69B, because the difference alone does not establish unexplained investment or understatement with the required evidentiary basis. On that reasoning, the addition was held unsustainable and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Inspector, acting in a survey under section 133A, exceeded the scope of his authority by recording a statement on oath and preparing an inventory of stock; (ii) whether an addition under section 69B could be made on the basis of a difference between the stock reflected in the books and the stock found during survey.

Issue (i): Whether the Inspector, acting in a survey under section 133A, exceeded the scope of his authority by recording a statement on oath and preparing an inventory of stock.

Analysis: The provision permits inspection of books and documents, identification marks, and extraction of copies, but does not authorise an Inspector to record statements on oath or to undertake an inventory of stock in the manner done in the survey. The action taken was beyond the statutory powers conferred for survey.

Conclusion: The Inspector acted beyond the scope of authority under section 133A.

Issue (ii): Whether an addition under section 69B could be made on the basis of a difference between the stock reflected in the books and the stock found during survey.

Analysis: On the facts found, the stock discrepancy by itself did not justify an addition under section 69B. The mere finding of stock being less than or different from the book figure was held insufficient for sustaining the addition made on that account.

Conclusion: The addition under section 69B was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge failed and the deletion of the addition was upheld, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A survey under section 133A cannot be used to enlarge the powers of the Inspector beyond those specifically conferred by the statute, and a stock discrepancy by itself does not automatically attract addition under section 69B.

---