TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r hearing. 3. The issue raised in ground nos.1 & 2, is against the deletion of addition of Rs.4,41,61,742/- by the ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO in respect of undisclosed income admitted by the assessee during survey u/s 133A of the Act. 3.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee was carrying on the business of transportation of goods. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 08.11.2013. During the course of survey some books/documents were impounded and the statements were also recorded u/s 133A of the Act. The impounded papers were accepted by the ld. AO but explanation of the assessee qua the seized documents was rejected as regards the admission of the assessee qua the undisclosed income in the statement recorded at the time of survey. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.4,41,61,742/- was made towards undisclosed profit as admitted in the statement recorded during the survey. The ld. AO accepted the profit on transportation business at 2.9% meaning thereby that if the income after addition is considered the turnover of the assessee would be 152 crores which is approximately 5.5 times higher than the declared turnover. 3.2. The ld. CIT (A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mansion Pvt. Ltd. However, the AO did not accept the retraction of the appellant and made the addition of Rs. 4,41,61,742/- in the total income. a Here in appeal also, the appellant has stated that the decision of the AO in making the addition of Rs. 4,41,61,742/- as undisclosed income solely on the basis of retracted statement is not only erroneous and arbitrary but untenable in the eyes of law. The survey team has not found any other piece of evidence regarding any unaccounted transaction except that dumb sheet of paper allegedly taken out from the computer system of the appellant. This has been the stand of the appellant right from 2nd day after the survey till the passing of assessment order. The appellant has emphasized reference to that any the said piece of paper does not mention any name, details, or stand person. This paper is in no way related to his business. It is the belong of to the him. appellant since very beginning that said page 33 of SA-5 does not which Rather as per him, the said paper is a kind of fabricated document, pressure is used for taking out the disclosure of additional income and that too under retraction and to the coercion. AO The appellant has stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the very inception denied having any nexus with the seized papers (iii) the impugned papers did not constitute books of account, (iv) the said papers are unsigned and therefore, not sufficient to fasten the liability on the assessee, (v) the assessing officer did not carry out any enquiry by summoning the persons named in the seized papers although the assessee has furnished their addresses, (vi) some of the documents did not specify the year." Here in the instant case also, 1. No evidence of unaccounted cash, or cash receipt, cash payment, investment outside the books etc. was found from the business premises of the appellant. 2. The assessee has denied having any nexus with the impounded paper since very beginning. 3. The impugned papers did not constitute the books of accounts. 4. The said paper is unsigned and does not mention any name, detail or any reference to any other person, forget about assessee. 5. The assessing officer did not carry out any enquiry to examine the veracity of the paper that collect any other corroborative evidence despite the fact the genuineness of the said paper was questioned some 3 years be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f a search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transaction of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Any gap in the various components for the charge of tax must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigations and correlations with other material found either during the course of the search or on investigations". As regards to the evidentiary value of the statement recorded in survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem v. S Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition unless and until supported by some other corroborative evidence. There is also merit in the submission of the appellant that the survey party has not found a single piece of evidence except that disputed computer printout, on the basis of which it could be said that the appellant was indulged in doing unaccounted business at such a large scale to earn a profit of Rs. 4,41,61,742/-. It is needless....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omers and insurance of goods during transit is required. If any goods is transported the transporter is bailed in respect of such goods and has to maintain sizeable records. Not a single paper or document was found which was not recorded in the regular books of accounts. Therefore, the very assumption of receipts of income from transportation of goods that too weekly and from all over India is figment of mind. No such addition can be made on the basis of a paper which had no corroborative evidence. The CBDT Circular referred to above specifically says that the AO should rely on credible evidence. The piece of paper found cannot be treated as credible evidence particularly when the same was not corroborated by any other paper or entry or books of account or document. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis position of law on this issue, as pronounce by the various courts, the addition made by the AO of additional income of Rs. 4,41,61,742/- to the total income is not found correct. The reason being as under: 1. The computer Print-out impounded as page no. 33 of SA-5 is dumb document as it does not mention any details of the person t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....more income than the income shown in the regular books of accounts. 6. The AO has made addition on the basis of dumb documents, which does not mention name or any details of any person. Even it does not state that it is a weekly cash collection. No name, no details, no signature, only dates and amounts are mentioned. 7. Not a single penny of unaccounted cash was found at the survey premises. Neither any evidences of unaccounted cash book, unaccounted cash vouchers, cash receipt, cash payments detail etc. were found in the survey. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of S. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 that statement recorded during survey u/s 133A has no evidentiary value, and any admission made during such statement cannot be made the basis of addition. Therefore, in view of the facts discussed in detail as well as the Laws involved on this subject, I found no merit in addition of AO of Rs. 4,41,61,742/- made solely relaying on retracted statement taken in survey in connection with a dumb document. Hence, the addition of Rs. 4,41,61,742/- is deleted. Further, since it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that the assessee has made some cash payments in violation of provisions e of section 40A(3) of the Act as the payments were above 20,000/- each in case of M/s Heritage Infrastructure and Rs.35,000/- in case of M/s Heritage transport organization. Finally, the ld. AO disallowed the said amount and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition to the tune of Rs.21,48,856/- and partly sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.13,89,500/- by observing and holding as under:- "The appellant has raised ground no. 6 of his appeal against the disallowance of expenditure under the provision of section 40A (3) of this act of Rs. 35,38,356. The AO in its assessment order has stated that during the course of survey, it was found from the debit vouchers impounded in SA-5, HTO(CITRD)03, and HTO(CITRD)04, that appellant has made payment exceeding Rs. 35,00,000/- on several occasions to different parties. These payments were made for the two partnership concerns 'of the appellant namely Heritage Infrastructure (SA-5) of Rs. 2,81,156/- and heritage transport organization HTO(CIT RD)03, of Rs. 12,25,300/- an....