TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught to be urged is whether, in the circumstances, the addition of Rs. 63,33,260/- is legally sustainable. 3. The assessee engaged itself in real estate and constructions activities. It was subjected to survey operation under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. During the course of survey, the statement of one of its Directors was recorded, wherein he disclosed that a sum of Rs. 15,00,55,000/- is an additional income outside the regular books of accounts and furnished details in this regard. These amounts were split into three parts and have been reflected in a tabular statement in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. The assessee had not disclosed this income in its returns, but declared it at the time of survey. It was asked to show cause ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e material, the Revenue authorities cannot rely exclusively upon the materials gathered during the course of survey to hold them to be receipts. 5. In Dhingra Metals, the Court no doubt noticed that unlike Section 132 (4), Section 133A (3) (iii) merely enables the AO to use its discretion to record a statement, but does not empower the AO to take a sworn statement on oath. The existence of that discretion was highlighted to say that the recording of a statement is not compulsory, and, therefore, that the statement obviously lacks evidentiary value. Consequently, adverse inferences cannot be drawn from the statement and due regard is to be given to the explanations offered as well as the existence or otherwise of other materials. The Court t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The Court had occasion to interpret Section 133(A). That was not a case where the Court analysed Section 132 (4) or dealt with the presumption enabled under that provision. In the present case, the extent of amounts which the AO took into consideration in adding back on the basis of the receipts and rough jottings was Rs. 1,11,12,860/-. The assessee's Director stated this in the course of survey in the statement recorded by the Revenue. Though the assessee claims - in the reply to the questionnaire given to it on 27.11.2010 - that the statement was not voluntary and the surrender was not binding, we notice that the reply dated 21.12.2010 itself does not give the date when such retraction letter was given to the assessee. 8. This Court i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Instead, the reference to the presumption under Section 132 (4A) refers to presumption of fact of the genre Section 114 of the Evidence Act deals with it. Likewise, the relevance and admissibility follow the same train of thought conceptually, when one comes to Section 133A (3) (iii). All that this provision enables to the authority concerned to do is to draw an adverse inference by relying upon materials which are seized, or dealt with in the course of the survey. 10. In the present case, the admitted facts are that during the survey, a Director of the assessee - who was duly authorized to make a statement about the materials and the undisclosed income, did so on 20.11.2007. The Company did not retract it immediately or any time before t....