TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2013 (6) TMI 305 - SUPREME COURT] held that statement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Therefore, the statement recorded during the survey proceedings cannot be relied upon to complete the assessment and estimating the taxable income relying on such statement. We reject the estimation of income made during this AY under consideration. Since the assessee has already declared additional income, the same may be considered as taxable income for this AY under consideration. Additional service tax liability - Held that:- We find that assessee has not claimed the above liability as expenditure since the assessee is not aware of the expenses of the liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, in the assessment proceedings, assessee brought on record to claim the Central Excise Service Tax demand of ₹ 28,71,629/- for this AY, but, the demand was raised by the Central Excise Department subsequent to filing of the return of income and the same was rejected by the AO and completed the assessment. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising 15 grounds of appeal. Assessee has not argued and not pressed before us ground Nos. 12 to 14 and the same were also not argued before the lower authorities. Hence, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same was brought to the notice of the assessee by the Central Excise Department and the assessee has received final service tax order on 16/08/2012 and this liability pertains to the AY under consideration. The portion of the liability pertains to assessee, which is an expenditure allowable u/s 37 of the Act. He admitted that this liability was not claimed in the return of income nor paid before filing the return of income. 6. Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that during survey proceedings, assessee itself given a statement that 10% of the profit will be declared as income for the current AY, however, it was submitted that assessee has offered ₹ 30 lakhs as additional income in the return of income, but, not disclosed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is 3.81% of sales. Assessee has declared ₹ 30 lakhs as additional income consequent to survey and the basis of such declaration of additional income was not brought on record. It is a fact that AO has not rejected the books of account and merely relying on the statement given by one of the partner to estimate the income of the assessee as taxable income is not proper. In our view, one of the partner has agreed to estimate the income and not to declare the real income @ 10%. Since the assessee has voluntarily declared ₹ 30 lakhs as additional income, AO should have verified the basis of declaring additional income and should have verified the books of account and estimating the income merely relying on the statement given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same is not of any help to the revenue. 8. With regard to claim of additional service tax liability, we find that assessee has not claimed the above liability as expenditure since the assessee is not aware of the expenses of the liability before filing of the return of income and also assessee has not made payment before filing return of income. Therefore, assessee is not eligible to claim this additional liability in this current AY and assessee can claim this additional liability in the year in which it makes the payment and claim it as expenditure in the year of payment. Therefore, ground Nos. 10 11 are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 27th June, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
