Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The submissions made by the assessee and the facts stated therein were forwarded to the AO vide this office letter No. 1139-40 dated 10.12.2012 to verify from the books of account/assessment record/ survey record of the assessee vis-a-vis the creditor M/s Pearl India Ltd. and submit a report. Simultaneously a letter no. 1148-49 dated 11.12.2012 was also issued to Pearl India Ltd. (PACL Ltd.), New Delhi seeking information u/s 133(6) of the Act in the assessee's case asking copy of account of the assessee as per books of Pearl India Ltd. as on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. In response a reply from PACL Ltd. dated 17.01.2013 was received with copies of statement of account of the assessee enclosed as on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. The statement of account showed opening and closing balances as on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. Thereafter, a summon u/s 131 of the Act dated 15.03.2013 was issued to Pearl India Ltd., New Delhi requiring the ledger for A.Y. 2009- 10 and 2010-11 and audited balance sheet for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. In response to the notice u/s 131 of the Act, the PACL Ltd. replied and enclosed the audited balance sheet for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. The informations received in response to notices u/s 133(6) and u/s 131 of the Act, the same were again forwarded to the AO vide this office letter No.67 dated 09.04.2013 to verify the facts from the books of account/assessment record and balance sheet of Pearl India Ltd., New Delhi.

10(i). On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and referred to various documents from the Paper Book to show that the seized paper PB- 82 was fabricated and did not lead to any payment of Rs. 90 lacs. He has submitted that seized paper is not corroborated by any evidence because M/s PACL Ltd. has shown the amount outstanding in their books of account and later on, payments have been received by them through cheques. This information is verified by the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings. Copies of the balance sheet of the assessee and M/s PACL Ltd. have been brought on record to justify the findings of the ld. CIT(Appeals). During the course of survey, statement of assessee could not be recorded. Since assessee proved that seized paper was incorrect, therefore, retraction from the statement was justified and relied upon order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO 31 ITR (Tribunal ) 680.

11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The copy of the seized paper is filed at page 82 of the Paper Book. The ld. CIT(Appeals) correctly noted that date has been corrected in the same by over-writing the date, has been repeated below on the letter. The date of survey was 23.06.2009 and corrected date was 23.03.2009 which could not be said to be mere co-incidence. The contents of the seized paper say that 'for the year ending 31.03.2009', whereas the letter after correction is supposed to be signed on 23.03.2009. The language of the letter shows that such language could only be written only after the close of the year i.e. 31.03.2009. The findings of fact recorded by ld. CIT(Appeals) are correct and based on proper appreciation of the seized paper. If a person is writing such a letter on 23.03.2009, he cannot anticipate what would be due on later date on 31.03.2009. Further, the amount payable as per the seized paper was shown at Rs. 90 lacs whereas as per assessee's books of account (PB-8 sundry creditors) as per books of account of the assessee, the balance was Rs.1.35 Cr. The accounts for subsequent period also show that assessee has made payment on various dates by account payee cheques and the closing balance as on 31.03.2010 was Rs. 35,10,686/-. So, if the assessee has made payments prior to that, the question of making subsequent payment by account payee cheque would not arise. PB- 32 is ledger account of M/s PACL Ltd. showing payments of Rs. 1 Crore on different dates through banking channel, copy of the bank account of the assessee as well as copy of bank account of M/s PACL Ltd. filed on record also support the explanation of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also obtained information directly from M/s PACL Ltd., New Delhi through notices under section 133(6) and 131 which shows that there were running accounts with the assessee and M/s PACL Ltd. has shown in its account the payment received on subsequent dates. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that there is a considerable force in the submission of assessee because when original seized paper (PB-82) is written, how the same remained in the office of the assessee because it should have reached M/s PACL Ltd. but recovery of the original shows that no payments have been made by assessee as alleged in the seized paper. The ld. CIT(Appeals) also noted that there is a break in the recording of the statement on the date of the survey and assessee was not able to explain the details of the transactions. This shows that the document in question was not verified from the books of account of the assessee. There was also no finding of the Survey Team about the balances as per books of account of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, rightly considered the Board's circular that in such a situation, confessional statement should not be obtained because it should be based on credible evidences.

"Held, allowing the appeal, that the addition was made without proper evidence and merely on the basis of a statement recorded during the survey, which could not be sustained. No proper enquiry was conducted. Therefore, the addition made was to be deleted".

13. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the seized paper (PB-82) is not reliable, did not show correct state of affairs and same is not corroborated by any independent evidence. There is interpolation of the date in the same and the language contained therein clearly show that the letter is not disclosing correct facts. It is also not explained why the original letter remained with the assessee and how the payment of Rs. 90 lacs have been verified. M/s PACL Ltd. did not confirm alleged payment. Therefore, assessee had a justification to retract from the earlier statement making surrender of Rs. 90 lacs. The assessee, has been able to show that the retraction from the earlier statement was justified and based on the facts and material on record. The ld. CIT(Appeals), on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, correctly deleted the addition. The decision relied upon by ld. DR would not support the case of the revenue because of the facts and circumstances as considered above. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition.