SHRI MANOJ B. KULCHANDANI,BHARUCH vs. THE DY.CIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE, BHARUCH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of a survey admission without corroborating evidence. The actual investment in FDs and the income element on sale of gold ornaments should be considered after examining the assessee's details.
What were the facts?
During a survey under section 133A, the assessee admitted unaccounted investment in fixed deposits and sale proceeds of gold ornaments. However, the assessee later disclosed lower figures in the return of income, which were rejected by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether additions can be made solely based on survey admissions without independent corroboration, and how to determine the taxable income from sale of assets.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD ‘C’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar, AM:
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 01.11.2014, passed by the learned CIT(A)-VI, Baroda for the assessment year 2007-08, on the following grounds :-
Grievances of the assessee are against learned CIT(A)’s upholding the addition of Rs.91,000/- in respect of investment in fixed deposit and of Rs.4,33,125/- in respect of profit on sale of gold ornaments.
ITA No.217/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Page 2 of 3 3. To adjudicate on these grievances, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. The business premises of the assessee was subjected to survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During this survey, the assessee admitted unaccounted investment in fixed deposit with Syndicate Bank to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and unaccounted sale proceeds of gold ornaments to the tune of Rs.4,33,125/-. However, when the assessee filed his return of income, he disclosed unaccounted income representing FD investment at Rs.2,59,000/- since actual FD investment was found to be this figure, and unaccounted income representing sale proceeds of gold ornaments at Rs.2,76,031/- after deducting indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.2,76,031/-. The explanations given by the assessee with respect to these variations were, however, rejected. The Assessing Officer proceeded to make additions on the basis of declarations, and learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. The assessee is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.
As regards the investment in FDs, we have noted that the investment in FD is taken at Rs.3,50,000/- on the basis of a chit found during the survey but then the said figure is not corroborated by the Syndicate Bank’s certificate dated 24.12.2005 which shows payment at Rs.2,80,932/- including interest. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer cannot make addition simply on the basis of surrender of income during survey under section 133A. Such statement does not have any evidentiary value and the addition, therefore, has to be on the basis of cogent material i.e. actual investment with FD. Similarly, entire sale proceeds of jewellery cannot be treated as income either. What can be brought to tax is only the income element on sale of
ITA No.217/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Page 3 of 3 jewellery which was not found with the assessee, even if it is assumed, as is assumed in this case, that gold jewellery not found with the assessee is sold by the assessee. Having held so, we may clarify that it is for the assessee to give reasonable details about actual investment in FD and the year in which gold jewellery in question was purchased. The assessee has to furnish these details to the Assessing Officer, and it is only after examining such details that the Assessing Officer has to decide the matter afresh in the light of our above observations, in accordance with the law and not solely on the basis of statement made by the assessee during the survey proceedings. With these directions, the matter stands restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
No other issue was pressed before us.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 17th day of August, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the17th day of August, 2017 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026