Survey statements under Section 133A not on oath can't justify Section 37 disallowance without independent evidence

ITAT held that statements recorded during survey u/s 133A(3)(iii), which are not on oath, have no independent evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for addition. The disallowance of labour and sub-contract expenses u/s 37, made only on the basis of a retracted statement of one contractor and partial reliance on another, without any corroborating material or inquiry into other contractors, was found unsustainable. Observing consistent profit ratios and higher profit for the year, ITAT concluded the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business and deleted the additions, allowing the assessee's appeals.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether statements recorded during a survey under section 133A(3)(iii) can be the sole basis for disallowance of business expenditure under section 37 in the absence of corroborative material.

2. Whether retractions/revised replies filed shortly after receipt of copies of statements recorded during survey are to be ignored as afterthoughts or are entitled to consideration in concluding assessment.

3. Whether payments to persons described by the revenue as "employees" but claimed by the assessee as labour/sub-contractors could be disallowed when the assessee produces payment registers, bank evidence, TDS deduction, affidavits, and independent statements corroborating the nature of work.

4. Whether deduction of tax at source, absence of formal agreements/MOUs or immediate cash withdrawals from recipients' bank accounts justify treating payments as not wholly and exclusively for business.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 133A(3)(iii) as sole basis for additions under section 37

Legal framework: Section 133A authorises survey and recording of statements but does not empower the officer to record evidence on oath; such statements are not conclusive evidence and have limited evidentiary value.

Precedent treatment: The Court follows earlier authority recognising that statements under section 133A lack evidentiary value comparable to sworn statements; decisions emphasising need for corroboration were applied.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasises that statements recorded during survey are "simply an information" and cannot, without corroborative material, serve as the sole basis for making additions. Reliance only on unsworn survey statements, particularly when those statements are retracted, is inadequate for disallowance under section 37.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - survey statements not being admissible as sole evidence for disallowance unless supported by independent material. Obiter - observations on officer conduct during survey and pressure arising therefrom.

Conclusion: The authorities erred in relying solely on survey statements to disallow payments; such statements must be corroborated by material evidence before additions are sustained.

Issue 2: Effect and admissibility of retractions/revised replies filed shortly after receipt of statement copies

Legal framework: A retraction filed promptly after receipt of the statement copy is a relevant explanatory material and cannot be automatically treated as an afterthought; assessing authorities must examine and weigh such retractions.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows coordinate-bench and High Court pronouncements that retractions made within a short period (days/weeks) and supported by explanation/affidavit deserve weight and cannot be summarily rejected as afterthoughts.

Interpretation and reasoning: Retractions filed within five days of receipt of statement copies were reasonable; given the circumstances of survey (pressure, absence of opportunity to consult), immediate retraction is plausible and must be considered. The lower authorities' dismissal of such retractions as afterthoughts was not justified where no adverse corroborative material existed.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - prompt retractions supported by explanation must be considered and can negate reliance on original survey statements. Obiter - comparative discussion of what time delay may render a retraction suspect.

Conclusion: The retractions filed within days were entitled to be considered and undermine the weight of the original survey statements relied upon by revenue.

Issue 3: Sufficiency of documentary and corroborative evidence for payments to labour contractors/sub-contractors

Legal framework: Expenditure is allowable under section 37 if incurred wholly and exclusively for business; revenue bears burden to prove payments were not genuine business expenses. Nature of trade may determine the form of documentary proof reasonably available.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal applied authorities holding that mere lack of conventional documents (agreements, invoices) is not decisive where the nature of business (construction) customarily operates without formal MOUs and where other contemporaneous records exist.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the nature of construction business where labour is often supplied without formal agreements, payment registers and attendance sheets are typical contemporaneous records, and payments through banking channels with TDS and independent affidavits/statements are relevant corroboration. Revenue failed to point to defects in the audited books, payment registers found at premises, ledger extracts, TDS documentation and bank statements. Statements of at least one labour contractor contained detailed project-level particulars corroborating services rendered. The AO selectively relied on limited portions of statements and cash-withdrawal patterns without constructing probative link showing payments were not for business purpose.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where contemporaneous registers, bank entries, TDS, affidavits and corroborative contractor statements exist, absence of formal MOUs/bills is not sufficient to disallow expenses; revenue must produce affirmative adverse material to prove non-genuineness. Obiter - critique of mechanical insistence on standard documents in sectors where such documents are uncommon.

Conclusion: The assessee produced adequate contemporaneous and corroborative material for payments to labour/sub-contractors; revenue failed to discharge burden to prove payments were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business, so disallowances could not stand.

Issue 4: Role of TDS deduction, bank withdrawals and non-filing of returns by recipients in assessing genuineness of expenses

Legal framework: Deduction of TDS and bank payment traces are indicia but not conclusive proof of genuineness; conversely, recipients' non-filing of returns or cash withdrawals do not ipso facto render payments bogus unless linked to other adverse evidence.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applied authority holding that TDS deduction is not, by itself, conclusive proof of genuineness but is relevant corroboration; likewise, revenue cannot rely on isolated inferences from withdrawal patterns without additional material.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that TDS deduction, bank transfers, and contemporaneous registers collectively constituted meaningful corroboration. Immediate withdrawal of funds by recipients was plausibly explained as payments to labourers in cash - a common practice in the industry - and could not be treated as evidence of sham transactions without stronger adverse facts. Non-filing of returns by some recipients did not shift the burden onto the assessee to disprove inferences when the assessee had otherwise placed supporting material on record.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - TDS and bank evidence are relevant corroborative factors but cannot substitute for the revenue's obligation to produce independent, adverse material proving non-genuineness; routine cash withdrawals by recipients require contextual analysis before inferring sham payments. Obiter - observations on industry practices regarding cash payments to labourers.

Conclusion: TDS deduction and withdrawal patterns were insufficient to impugn genuineness where other corroborative records existed and revenue produced no adverse material demonstrating payments were not for business.

Final disposition and directive

Conclusions: The Tribunal held that (a) statements recorded under section 133A alone are insufficient to sustain additions under section 37; (b) prompt retractions must be considered and can vitiate reliance on survey statements; (c) the assessee's contemporaneous payment registers, bank records, TDS certificates, affidavits, and contractor statements sufficiently corroborated the expenditure; and (d) revenue failed to bring any independent material to establish that the examined payments were not wholly and exclusively for the assessee's business. Resultantly, the disallowances of Rs. 4,65,00,000 and Rs. 1,94,62,591 were deleted and the appeals were allowed, with direction to the assessing officer to give effect to this decision.

---