Neetu Sharma Vs PCIT (Chhattisgarh High Court)
In Neetu Sharma Vs PCIT before the Chhattisgarh High Court, the petitioner challenged the additions made to her income based on alleged excess stock and excess cash disclosed during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantial question of law framed was whether the ITAT was justified in sustaining these additions solely on a statement recorded under Section 133A. The petitioner, engaged in trading car accessories, was surveyed on 03.03.2011, after which she filed her return for A.Y. 2011-12 declaring an income of ₹13,37,110. During the survey, she disclosed excess cash of ₹3,40,009, excess stock of ₹16,09,385, and unexplained investment of ₹10,00,000, totaling ₹29,49,394. She later retracted the statement and did not offer tax on the disclosed amounts.
The Assessing Officer (A.O.) passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 18.03.2014, adding ₹32,81,100 to her income. The appellate authorities, including CIT (Appeals) and ITAT, upheld the addition, relying on the survey statement under Section 133A. The petitioner contended that the addition was legally unsustainable, citing the Madras High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Khader Khan Son, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. S. Khader Khan Son, which held that statements recorded under Section 133A during survey proceedings are not conclusive and have no evidentiary value, as officers recording them are not authorized to administer oath. Unlike Section 132(4), which allows sworn statements during search and seizure to be used as evidence, Section 133A merely permits recording statements for relevant information but does not give them evidentiary weight.
