9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1431 - AT - Income TaxAddition on the basis of loose papers found in search - Held that - As document is silent as to the payer and payee of the amount in question nor does it disclose that the payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that the document is in the handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures. So, we are of the considered view that the addition on the basis of only document is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and satisfaction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Additions on account of unexplained expenditures under Section 69C. 4. Adequacy of evidence and reliance on seized documents. 5. Charging of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Satisfaction under Section 153A: The assessee contested that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not assume jurisdiction as per law, failed to record requisite satisfaction, and did not obtain requisite approval as mandated under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had based their assessment on seized documents that did not bear the name, address, signatures, or handwriting of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the assessments were made on suspicion and were not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The assessee argued that the assessment was framed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination, did not confront the assessee with adverse material, and did not provide an adequate hearing. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to verify the authenticity of the seized documents and did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain or contest the documents. This lack of procedural fairness contributed to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the additions. 3. Additions on Account of Unexplained Expenditures under Section 69C: The Tribunal examined several additions made by the AO under Section 69C based on loose documents seized during the search. These included: - ?5,00,000/-: The document indicated a loan taken by K.L. Bhatia, which the AO misinterpreted due to a typographical error in the cheque number. - ?40,85,000/-: Based on an estimate of house construction, the document lacked details such as the location of the house or evidence of payment. - ?49,00,000/-: Related to "Extras not included in basic construction," the document did not specify the property or the payee. - ?3,31,450/-: Based on a bill that did not bear the assessee's name or any verification of payment. - ?1,00,000/-: The document did not identify the assessee or the purpose of payment. - ?80,50,000/-: The document lacked details on the payer, payee, or mode of payment. The Tribunal found these additions were based on suspicion without corroborative evidence, and thus, not sustainable. 4. Adequacy of Evidence and Reliance on Seized Documents: The Tribunal emphasized that the seized documents did not bear any direct connection to the assessee. The AO did not bring any forensic evidence or corroborative material to substantiate the additions. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to prove the assessee's conscious possession of the documents and relied on deeming provisions without proper evidence. 5. Charging of Interest under Section 234B: The assessee challenged the charging of interest under Section 234B, which the Tribunal did not specifically address in detail. However, given the deletion of the additions, the consequential relief on interest would follow. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable in law due to lack of evidence, procedural irregularities, and violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the impugned additions were deleted. The order was pronounced in open court on July 29, 2016.
|
