Survey declaration and unverified job-work jewellery records cannot by themselves sustain tax additions.

An ITAT note explains that an addition for alleged unexplained excess gold jewellery under section 69A was not finally sustained because the assessee claimed the jewellery belonged to customers for job work and produced fresh details that had not been examined; the matter was therefore sent back for fresh verification by the Assessing Officer. It also notes that an addition for difference in business income, based only on a survey declaration, was deleted because the audited books and return were otherwise relied upon and the declaration alone was not enough to support the addition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained excess gold jewellery was sustainable or required fresh verification; (ii) Whether the addition made towards difference in business income could be sustained on the basis of the survey declaration.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained excess gold jewellery was sustainable or required fresh verification.

Analysis: The disputed excess gold jewellery was claimed to have been received from customers for job work and not owned by the assessee. Fresh details of receipt, return, quantity, and labour charges were produced, but those particulars had not been examined by the lower authorities. In view of the additional material and the requirement of fair opportunity, the matter needed verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and the relief was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made towards difference in business income could be sustained on the basis of the survey declaration.

Analysis: The addition was based only on the declaration recorded during survey, while the assessee's books were audited and the return disclosed the business income claimed to have actually been earned. On the facts placed, the survey declaration was not treated as sufficient to sustain the addition.

Conclusion: The addition towards difference in business income was directed to be deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with one issue remitted for reconsideration and the other resulting in deletion of the addition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material evidence supporting a job-work explanation has not been examined, and the assessee is afforded no effective verification of such evidence, the addition cannot be finally sustained without fresh inquiry; a survey declaration alone does not automatically justify a business-income addition when the audited books and return are otherwise relied upon.

---