Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. It was further submitted that in the statements recorded of the director Shri Nagarmal Agarwal during the course of survey, the section under which they are recorded have been stated as 131A(1) which appears to be a slip of pen as no such section is available on the statute therefore there arises no occasion to invoke the same. Possibly the official who recorded the statements intended to write the section as 133A(1) and by mistake instead of 133A he stated the same as 131A. The statement of other director Shri Durga Prasad Agarwal was also recoded simultaneously i.e. at the same place as well as almost similar hours wherein the correct section i.e. u/s 133A(1) is stated thus it is clear that due to human error instead of 133A it was written as 131A in the statement of Shri Nagarmal Agarwal and therefore, the same should be regarded to have been recorded u/s 133A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the case laws submitted earlier wherein it has been held that no statements u/s 133A can be recorded on oath during the course of survey, are applicable and accordingly it is submitted that the addition of Rs. 3,6672,718/- solely made only on the basis of such statements deserves to be deleted.

ITA No. 1236 & 1429/JP/2018 DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

(viii) However, it is noted from the copy of statement of Shri Nagarmal Agarwal, the Director of the appellant company placed on record that the said statement appears to be recorded on oath u/s 131A and not u/s 133A of the Act as claimed by the appellant and the attention of the AR was drawn to this fact. In response, it was submitted by the appellant that in the statement of the director Shri Nagarmal Agarwal, the section under which it has been recorded, has been stated as 131A(1) appears to be a slip of pen as there is no such section available on the statute, therefore, there arises no occasion to invoke the same. It was further stated that possibly, the official, who has recorded the statement intended to write the section as 133A(1) and by mistake insteac of 133A, he stated the same as 131A. It was also stated that the statements of other director Shri Durga Prasad Agarwal was also recoded simultaneously i.e. at the same place as well as almost similar hours, wherein the correct section i.e. u/s 133A(1) was stated (APB-37). Thus, it was the contention of the appellant that due to human error instead of 133A, it was written as 131A in the statement of Shri Nagarmal Agarwal and therefore, the same should be regarded to have been recorded u/s 133A(1) of the Act. It was also submitted that a statement can be recorded u/s 131(1)(d) of the Act by issuing commission and the statement u/s 131(1A) of the Act can be recorded by Pr. DG or DG or Pr. Director or Director or ADIT or DDIT or authorized officer of income tax for making any investigation or enquiry where no proceedings under the Act are pending and since survey action u/s 133A has taken place, such provisions are also not applicable. It was further submitted that the case laws submitted earlier, wherein, it has been held that no statements u/s 133A can be recorded on oath during the curse of survey, are applicable and ITA No. 1236 & 1429/JP/2018 DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur accordingly, it was submitted that the addition of Rs. 3,66,72,718/- solely made on the basis of such statements ceserves to be deleted.