By AJAY R. SINGH
Advocate
The Pr. CIT-4 vs. M/s Sunshine Import and Export Pvt. Ltd. [Income
tax Appeal Nos. 937, 1121 & 1135 of 2017]
Date of order: 4th March, 2020
(Bombay High Court)
M/s Sunshine Import and Export
Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT; [ITA No. 4347/Mum/2015; Date of order: 9th September,
2016; Bench: B; A.Y.: 2008-09 to 2010-11; Mum. ITAT]
Section 133A – Survey – Statement
of directors of company recorded u/s 133A – No incriminating evidence and
material – No evidentiary value – Any admission made in course of such
statement cannot be made basis of addition
The assessee is engaged in the
business of manufacturing and trading in precious and semi-precious stones and
jewellery. It has two Directors, Shri Paras Jain and Shri Saurabh Garg. A
survey u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in respect of the assessee. During
the post-survey proceedings, the statement of one of the Directors, Shri
Saurabh Garg, was recorded. He was reported to have stated that the assessee
company provided only bill entries and there was no actual transaction of
purchase and sale. Subsequently, the statement of the other Director, Shri
Paras Jain, was also recorded. From the latter statement, the A.O. came to the
conclusion that he was a person of no means and drew the inference that the
assessee was engaged in the activity of issuing accommodation bills for the
sale and purchase of diamonds, apart from acting as a dummy for importers.
Holding the transactions as not reliable, the A.O. rejected the books of
accounts of the assessee company. He assessed 2% as the rate of commission of
the assessee on account of import purchases, i.e., for acting as a dummy. That
apart, commission @ 0.75% on sales bills was also assessed.
The CIT(A) confirmed the action
of the A.O., whereupon the assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the
assessee is mainly engaged in the import of diamonds and their sale in local
markets to exporters. The import of diamonds is done through customs
authorities and banking channels in India. The import of diamonds undergoes the
appraisal process by appraisers appointed by the custom authorities. The officers
appointed by the Government of India verify physically each and every parcel of
diamonds in order to ascertain the quality, quantity, rate, value and place of
origin against the declaration made by the importers. Further, all the
transactions of purchase, sales, import are made through account payee cheques
and not a single payment is made to any party by way of cash. All the purchase
and sales transactions are carried out with reputed parties in the diamond
trade and all the payments received from debtors are through account payee
cheques; similarly, all payments to creditors are through account payee
cheques.
As such, the A.O. cannot
allegedly consider the import of goods as providing accommodation bills in the
market when physical delivery of goods was confirmed by the other arm of
government, i.e., the custom authorities. From the record it is noted that the
sales were made to reputed exporters who are assessed to tax and their
identities are known to the Income Tax Department. The customers are registered
under state VAT laws. The company has received payments against sales proceeds
by account payee cheques. The company has also purchased from local parties to
whom payment was made by account payee cheques. To discharge the onus of
proving the transactions as genuine and to substantiate that all purchases and
sales made are genuine, the assessee has submitted various documents and
submissions; copies of bank statement for the relevant year; ledger copies of
various purchases from parties for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10; photo copies of
purchase invoices of parties for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10; the relevant copies
of the daily stock register; confirmation from various sale parties; details of
interest received from various parties; details of unsecured loans along with
confirmation; and so on. These documents prove that the assessee is not engaged
in issuing accommodation bills and acting as a dummy for importing diamonds.
Thus, the contention of the A.O. that the bills issued by the assessee are all
accommodation bills is wrong. Just on the basis of one recorded statement he
cannot reach the conclusion that the assessee has issued accommodation bills
and reject the books of accounts of the assessee.
Being aggrieved by the order of
the ITAT, the Revenue filed an appeal to the High Court. The Court held that in
arriving at such a finding, the Tribunal had noted that the survey party did
not find any incriminating evidence and material that could establish the stand
taken by the A.O. There was no disputing the fact that no incriminating
evidence was found on the day of the survey. It was also noted that merely on
the basis of the statement of one of the directors, Shri Saurabh Garg, and
that, too, recorded after 20 to 25 days of the survey, could not be sufficient
for bringing into assessment and making any addition to the income without
further supporting or corroborative evidence. The statement recorded u/s 133A
of the Act not being recorded on oath, cannot have any evidentiary value and no
addition can be made on the basis of such a statement.
In CIT
vs. S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157, the Madras High Court had concluded
that a statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value and that
materials or information found in the course of survey proceedings could not be
a basis for making any addition; besides, materials collected and statements
obtained u/s 133A would not automatically bind the assessee. This was affirmed
by the Supreme Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Revenue in CIT
vs. S. Khader Khan Son (Supra). In view of the above, the Revenue
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
