5 Section 133A – Returned income as against declared income during survey accepted.

5.  Amod Shivlal Shah vs. ACIT

Members:  G.S. Pannu (A. M.) and Pawan Singh (J. M.)

ITA No.: 795/MUM/2015  

A.Y.: 2006-07                                                                                               

Dated: 23^rd  February, 2018

Counsel for Assessee /
Revenue:  Dr. K. Shivaram &  Rahul Hakani / Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section
133A – Returned income as against declared income during survey accepted.

FACTS

The
assessee was engaged in carrying out business activity as a builder and
developer. On 12.03.2007, a survey action u/s. 133A was carried out at the
business premises of the assessee. At the time of survey, it was noted that the
return of income for the assessment year under consideration as well as for
Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 were not filed. It was found that the
development work of residential building situated at Bandra, Mumbai was
complete in view of the Occupancy Certificate issued by the Municipal
Corporation on 31.10.2005. In the statement recorded, the assessee declared the
income of Rs. 1 crore based on the work-in-progress declared for Assessment
Year 2003-04 and in the answer at the time of survey, the working thereof was
also enumerated. 

Subsequently,
the assessee filed a return of income for assessment year 2006-07 on 29.03.2007
declaring an income of Rs.25.36 lakh, which was accompanied by the audited
Balance-sheet and the Profit & Loss Account.  The response of the assessee was that
subsequent to the survey, it compiled its accounts, which were got audited
and   it  
 showed    that   
the    estimation     made      
at  Rs.1 crore was incorrect.
During the course of assessment, assessee also furnished the reconciliation
between income declared during survey and the returned income.  In sum and substance, the stand of the
assessee was that the income declared at the time of survey was a rough
estimate, whereas the return of income was on the basis of audited accounts
compiled with reference to the corresponding evidences, material, etc.

The
AO did not accept the explanation furnished as according to him, the
declaration made at the time of survey was binding on the assessee and the same
could not be retracted. The CIT(A) also affirmed the addition made by the
AO. 

Before
the Tribunal, the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities and
relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Hiralal
Maganlal and Co. vs. DCIT, (2005) 97 TTJ Mum 377.  

HELD

The
Tribunal noted that the income declared during the survey was entirely based on
the estimation of the value of the WIP as appearing on 31.03.2003 and the
expenses estimated for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2006-07.  Thus, the income offered at the time of
survey was on an estimate basis.  The
Tribunal also noted that the assessee had explained the basis on which the
income was drawn-up at the time of filing of return and the reasons for the
difference between the income offered at the time of survey and that declared
in the return of income. 

To
a question, whether the AO was justified in making the addition merely for the
reason that assessee had offered a higher amount of income at the time of
survey – the Tribunal relied to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (91 ITR
18) where the court had observed that the admission made on an anterior
date, which was not based on correct state of facts, was not conclusive to hold
the issue against the assessee. 

According
to the Tribunal, the stand of the assessee was much more convincing since the
original declaration itself was not based on any books of account or supporting
documents, but was merely an estimate, whereas the return of income had been
filed on the basis of audited accounts and the principal areas of differences,
namely, the amount of sale proceeds and the expenditure were duly supported by
relevant documents.

As
regards reliance placed by the revenue on the decision of the Tribunal in the
case of Hiralal Maganlal and Co., the Tribunal noted that the said decision was
dealing with a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act at the time of search,
whereas the present case was dealing with a statement recorded u/s. 133A of the
Act at the time of survey.  The Tribunal
pointed out that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan
Sons, 352 ITR 480 had upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court in the
case reported in 300 ITR 157, wherein the difference between sections 133A and
132(4) of the Act was noted and it was held that the statement u/s. 133A of the
Act would not have any evidentiary value. The Tribunal also referred to the
CBDT Circular no. 286/2/2003 (Inv.) II dated 10.03.2003, wherein it has been
observed that the assessments ought not to be based merely on the confession
obtained at the time of search and seizure and survey operations, but should be
based on the evidences/material gathered during the course of search/survey
operations or thereafter, while framing the relevant assessments. 

Accordingly,
the Tribunal set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete
the addition.