Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 938 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of suppression of income – nature of the documents found during the survey - evidentiary value of statement recorded u/s 133A - Held that:- The entries, neatly made, one for each date, for different dates, in a chronological order, by a partner managing the affairs of the firm (i.e., for most part), cannot be a scrawl, without any meaning. - Besides, the assessee's 'explanation', leaves one in no manner of any doubt in this respect. This is as each of the three versions by the assessee in explaining these entries are only in terms of money. - documents are not dumb documents. - high court in the case of Surendra M. Khandhar v. Asstt. CIT [2009 (1) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein the hon'ble court has clarified that the document found during survey is, unless successfully rebutted by the assessee, presumed to be true. Addition is confirmed as reasonable, meriting confirmation; the assessee having itself disclosed an excess of around 6% on even the expenses recoverable from its clients - The statement u/s.133A is by itself of no evidentiary value, and it is validity, if so, would only be with reference thereto, i.e., to the extent it explains or corroborates and/or supports the material/evidence found – consideration is given to the assessee's argument of netting the amount written on the right side, so that its nature could only be a different, i.e., representing out-lays, only to find the same as not acceptable. This is for the reason that it is not possible that such expenditure is incurred only on few (sixteen) days in a year, or even more importantly, not in the regular course - Further-more, the assessee surprisingly does not receive any amount on the said dates, so that it may represent an either or situation. Rather, the expenditure would not only be incurred on the basis of which the amount stands received, but also, where it is not so, there being as afore-noted a time gap between the entries in each row, so that there is no expenditure on all but 16 days during the relevant previous year – Decided in favor of Revenue.
|