Revenue's appeal dismissed as excessive expenses addition deleted without corroborative evidence beyond survey admissions

ITAT Jaipur dismissed revenue's appeal challenging CIT(A)'s deletion of addition for excessive and bogus expenses. AO had added Rs. 4.12 crore based on impounded documents during survey showing lower expenditure than audited accounts. Tribunal held that mere admission during survey without corroborative evidence cannot establish expenses as bogus. Expenses were supported by banking records, TDS deductions, ledger accounts, and salary sheets. Revenue failed to conduct independent verification or reject books under section 145. Tribunal found no substance in revenue's grounds as assessee provided adequate supporting evidence for claimed expenditure through properly audited accounts.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,72,858 (enhanced to Rs. 1,81,18,746) on account of excessive and bogus expenses.
2. Consideration of Naresh Jain's statement recorded under oath under section 131.
3. Assessment of the plea that the impounded documents were incomplete records.
4. Application of the decision of the Kerala High Court in K. Abdul Azeez vs Commissioner of Income Tax.
5. Validity of recording statements under section 131.
6. Relevance of undisclosed income offered during the survey for AY 2015-16.
7. Evidentiary value of the statement recorded under oath and its impact on the assessment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of CIT(A) in Deleting the Addition:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,71,72,858/- based on impounded documents showing Income and Expenditure A/c. The AO alleged that the assessee maintained two accounts to manipulate expenses. The assessee argued that the expenses were genuinely incurred, supported by bills and vouchers, and audited without any adverse remarks. The CIT(A) found that the AO's remand report verified the expenses as genuine, supported by bills, vouchers, and banking transactions. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of the statement recorded during the survey, especially when the books of accounts were not rejected. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

2. Consideration of Naresh Jain's Statement:
The Revenue relied heavily on Naresh Jain's statement recorded under section 131, where he admitted increased expenditure. The CIT(A) acknowledged the evidentiary value of the statement but emphasized that it was not conclusive. The CIT(A) found that the corroborative material used by the AO was fully explained by the assessee, and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, the admission alone could not be the basis for the addition. Thus, the deletion of the addition was justified.

3. Assessment of the Plea of Incomplete Records:
The assessee argued that the impounded documents were memorandum records, commonly used before making final entries in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) noted that the AO himself agreed that the details in the loose papers matched the expenses claimed in the P&L account. The CIT(A) found that the expenses were recorded in the regular books of accounts, supported by bills and vouchers, and audited without any adverse remarks. Therefore, the plea of incomplete records was accepted, and the addition was deleted.

4. Application of the Kerala High Court Decision:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) wrongly applied the decision of the Kerala High Court in K. Abdul Azeez vs Commissioner of Income Tax. The CIT(A) found that the addition was based solely on the statement recorded during the survey, without any other corroborative material. The CIT(A) applied the Kerala High Court's decision, which held that assessment of tax could not be made solely on the basis of such sworn statements. Therefore, the deletion of the addition was justified.

5. Validity of Recording Statements under Section 131:
The Revenue argued that the statement recorded under section 131 was valid. The CIT(A) found that the statement recorded during the survey was not conclusive and required corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the AO's remand report verified the expenses as genuine, supported by bills and vouchers. Therefore, the recording of the statement under section 131 did not justify the addition.

6. Relevance of Undisclosed Income Offered During Survey for AY 2015-16:
The Revenue claimed that the assessee accepted the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,71,72,858/- as related to AY 2015-16. The CIT(A) found that the assessee consistently contended that the documents were incomplete records and the audited accounts showed the true and correct expenditure. The CIT(A) noted that the AO considered the issue in AY 2015-16 based on the assessee's claim. Therefore, the deletion of the addition was justified.

7. Evidentiary Value of the Statement Recorded Under Oath:
The CIT(A) acknowledged the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under oath but emphasized that it was not conclusive. The CIT(A) found that the corroborative material used by the AO was fully explained by the assessee, and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, the admission alone could not be the basis for the addition. Therefore, the deletion of the addition was justified.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld on the grounds that the expenses were genuinely incurred, supported by bills and vouchers, and audited without any adverse remarks. The statement recorded during the survey was not conclusive and required corroborative evidence, which was not provided by the AO. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

---