No Additions u/s 69A Relying Upon Statement of Husband Recorded During Survey | ITAT

Case Details: ACIT vs. Nisha Jain - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 550 (Jaipur-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member & Dr Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member
• Mahendra Gargieya & Hemang Gargieya, Advs for the Appellant.
• A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

A survey under section 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee. During the survey, the Assessing Officer (AO) found a cash book belonging to the proprietary concern of the assessee, which showed that a certain sum was deposited in the assessee’s bank account during the demonetisation period. Assessee submitted that cash deposited during the demonetisation period was cash withdrawn from bank accounts in the financial year from time to time.

However, AO made an addition on account of the same on the ground that the assessee’s husband admitted that the assessee earned said amount from undisclosed sources.

ITAT Held

On appeal, CIT(A) held that the statement recorded during the survey was inconclusive and deleted the AO’s additions. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed before the Jaipur Tribunal.

The Jaipur Tribunal held that the assessee had been maintaining regular books of account, consisting of cash books subjected to tax audit. AO had certified, after due verification of the entire record, including the cash book, that all entries in the cash book were duly supported with bills and vouchers. It also showed entries of cash deposits in the bank.

It was undisputed that there was a considerable turnover, and most transactions were routed through banking channels. The accounts, including the cash book, were produced before the lower authorities during the assessment & appellate proceedings and were not found any fault with nor were rejected invoking section 145. Therefore, as per the mandate of that provision, they were binding upon the authorities below. Cash withdrawals were made from the bank accounts to meet the day-to-day business requirements and to make deposits in the bank accounts.

Further, a statement was made during the survey under section 133A(3)(iii) read with section 131 and does not have binding evidentiary value as is the case of admission made in the statement recorded under section 132(4). In any case, such admission was not corroborated by any document found during the survey except the incomplete cash book, which was not incriminating. Thus, no reason was found for the statement admitting the bank deposits as income (on behalf of the assessee but not even by the assessee) to be accepted.

Since the assessee had already explained the source of cash deposited, the impugned addition made merely based on a statement recorded during the survey was unjustified, and the same was to be deleted.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Paul Matthew’s & sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101: 181 CTR 207 (Kerala)
• S. Kadar Khan Sons [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras)
• CIT v. S. Kadar Khan [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC)
• PCIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 295 CTR 466 (Delhi) (para 3.3) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 129 Taxman 416/263 ITR 101 (Kerala) (para 3.3)
• CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413/210 Taxman 248/[2008] 300 ITR 157/[2013] 352 ITR 480 (Madaras) (para 3.3)
• CIT v. S. Kadar Khan [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) (para 3.3)
• Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287/248 Taxman 384/395 ITR 526 (Delhi) (para 3.3).