https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403789 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403789 Unexplained cash credit and the unexplained interest expenditure on it - case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited category - statement recorded u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- The so-called Inspector s Report which states that the lender companies could not be traced in their respective addresses was not furnished to the assessee. Secondly because, the evidence on record show that pursuant to the notice issued by AO u/s 133(6) of the Act to all these lenders at the very same addresses, it got served upon them by the postal authorities which fact can be safely inferred because it is not the case of the AO that notices issued u/s 133(6) has been returned back un-served . Thirdly all the lender companies have replied directly to the AO pursuant to the notices issued u/s 133(6) . Coming to the statement of Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal it is noted that his statement was recorded u/s 133A but survey statement has been recorded by DDIT(Inv) in some third party case and not that of assessee. Secondly the deponent has been administered oath before his statement was recorded, which is not in accordance to Section 133A of the Act and the Hon ble Supreme Court in Khader Khan Sons [ 2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER] held that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act is not given evidentiary value for the reason that officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement in contra distinction to the power vested in authorities to record statement under oath during search u/s 132 - on the sole statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act of Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal, no adverse view can be taken against the assessee since there is no evidentiary value to be given to it. After doing these exercises, still if the AO finds that from the statement which has undergone cross-examination, a wrong-doing on the part of assessee, then he could have drawn adverse inference against the assessee. However admittedly these actions were not taken by AO. So the statement of Shri Ashish Kumar cannot be relied upon against the assessee In the light of the fact that all the eleven (11) lender companies from which the assessee had taken loan of Rs. 4,50 crore had replied directly to AO pursuant to section 133(6) and the fact that all the lender companies are regular income tax assessee s having PAN as well as their ROC details were brought to the notice of AO their respective balance sheet shows that all of them have enough creditworthiness to lend the amounts in question to assessee and the assessee had squared up the loan transaction with all these lenders (except 15 Lakhs) and all the payments/TDS were made payments were made through banking channel, the addition made by AO was untenable and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition which action is confirmed - Decided in favour of assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530