Section 143 r.w.s. 131 and 133A – Assessing Officer could not make additions to income of the assessee company only on the basis of a sworn statement of its managing director recorded u/s. 131 in the course of a survey without support of any corroborative evidence

Section
143 r.w.s. 131 and 133A – Assessing Officer could not make additions to income
of the assessee company only on the basis of a sworn statement of its managing
director recorded u/s. 131 in the course of a survey without support of any
corroborative evidence

FACTS

A survey action u/s. 133A was conducted in the business
premises of the assessee firm. During the course of survey, summons u/s. 131(1)
was issued by the AO to TCV, managing partner of the firm, and statement u/s.
131 was recorded in which he indicated the gross profit of the assessee at 15%.
On verification of the profit and loss, the AO found that the assessee had
shown gross profit at 10.55% instead of 15% as indicated by the managing
partner. The AO assessed the gross profit at 15% and made an addition to the
income returned.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred
an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the statement of the managing
partner was not based on any books maintained by the assessee and, therefore,
no addition could be made based on such general statements.

Being aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the Revenue filed an
appeal before the Tribunal.

HELD

The Tribunal held that u/s. 131 the income tax authority
was empowered to examine on oath. The power invested u/s. 131(1) was only to
make inquiries and investigations and not meant for voluntary disclosure or
surrender of concealed income. As per section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1878 admissions were not conclusively proved as against admitted proof. The
burden to prove ‘admission’ as incorrect was on the maker and in case of
failure of the maker to prove that the earlier stated facts were wrong, these
earlier statements would suffice to conclude the matter. The authorities could
not conclude the matter on the basis of the earlier statements alone.

If the assessee proved that the statement recorded u/s.
131 was involuntary and it was made under coercion or during their admission,
the statement recorded u/s. 131 had no legal validity. From the CBDT Circular
in F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II) dated 18^th December, 2014 it was
amply clear that the CBDT had emphasised on its officers to focus on gathering
evidences during search / survey operations and strictly directed to avoid
obtaining admission of undisclosed income under coercion / under influence.

The uncorroborated statements collected by the AO could
not be the evidence for sustenance of the addition made by the AO. It had been
consistently held by various courts that a sworn statement could not be relied
upon for making any addition and must be corroborated by independent evidence
for the purposes of making assessments.

From the foregoing discussion, the following principles
could be culled out: Firstly, an admission was an extremely important piece of
evidence but it could not be said that it was conclusive and it was open to the
person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect and that the
assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of
accounts did not correctly disclose the correct state of facts. Secondly,
section 132(4) enabled the authorised officer to examine a person on oath and
any statement made by such person during such examination could also be used in
evidence under the Income-tax Act.

On the other hand,
whatever statement was recorded u/s. 133A could not be given any evidentiary
value for the obvious reason that the officer was not authorised to administer
oath and to take any sworn statement which alone had evidentiary value as
contemplated under law. Thirdly, the word ‘may’ used in section 133A(3)(iii),
viz., record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant
to, any proceeding under this Act, made it clear that the materials collected
and the statement recorded during the survey u/s. 133A were not a conclusive
piece of evidence in themselves. Finally, the statement recorded by the AO u/s.
131 could not be the basis to sustain the addition since it was not supported
by corroborative material.