TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er consideration declaring a total income of ` 1,72,830/-. A survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 09.08.2011. During the course of the survey, the assessee has admitted an undisclosed income of ` 67,00,780/-. Further, during the survey, the A.O. has found that an amount of ` 81,90,721/- was shown as outstanding credit balances against various parties from whom purchases were made and these credits were shown to have been paid off through cheques in subsequent years. On verification from the bank, it was found that the cheques were only self cheques. A sworn statement was recorded from the Managing Partner Shri M. Loganathan under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were recorded in the books as if made to the parties in whose name the expenses were accounted. Para 1.5 we also submit that a) At that point of time, it would be very difficult for us to identify the real suppliers with whom we had transacted and produce the letters from them confirming our business transactions with them. b) Moreover, this would affect our business relationship also. Para 1.6 We also submit that therefore, considering the difficulty narrated above, and to avoid consequential business disruptions, during the course of survey, we agreed to offer ` 67,00,780/- as our business income for the financial year 2008-09 with a request not to levy penalty. Para 1.7 Consequently, during the assessment proceedings, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tner Shri M. Loganathan. The Ld. counsel submitted that the statement given by the Managing Partner has no evidentiary value. For that, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has submitted that the Managing Partner of the assessee-company himself has accepted that there are fictitious payments and based on that statement, the penalty is imposed. He strongly supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There was a survey conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 09.08.2011. During the course of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only from organized sectors. In some emergency cases, the circumstances would demand us to purchase items from local unorganized vendors who would not maintain any details. Even though we might have really transacted with the concerned parties, we would not be able to co-operation from those vendors in the unorganized sectors to prove the genuineness of the transactions carried out with them. It is also submitted that it would be very difficult for us to identify the real suppliers with whom we had transacted and produce letters from them confirming the business transactions because the unorganized sector parties keep moving from one place to another place. However, the A.O. has not agreed with the submissions of the assessee and came to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as no evidentiary value and any admission made during in the statement cannot by itself be made the basis for addition. 9. In the case of CIT v. Balraj Sahni (1979) 119 ITR 36 (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that assessment proceedings are different from penalty proceedings. In penalty proceedings, the burden was always on the revenue to prove concealment and a finding reached in the quantum appeal that a particular income is liable to be added as income of the assessee is not binding in penalty proceedings. In this case, the A.O. imposed the penalty based on the statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act and thereafter, the assessee has submitted detailed reply with regard to the nature of business under what circ....