2010 (7) TMI 722 - AT - Income Tax

Proof of investment - source of investment - onus to prove - acquisition of plot - held that - In vie of K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981 -TMI - 5862 - Supreme Court), wherein it has been held that the burden of proving is that of Revenue when there is allegation of understatement or concealment in the consideration shown. - Further Where investment s could not be conclusively proved question of source of investment s will not arise.Thus appeal filed by revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Reopening of assessment and deletion of addition of Rs. 60,36,000 paid in cash for acquisition of a plot.

Analysis:

1. Reopening of Assessment:
The assessment was reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding a search operation at the business premises of a group of companies. The AO added Rs. 60,36,000 to the assessee's income, alleging undisclosed investment in a plot. The assessee contended that the documents provided did not support the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening but found discrepancies in the seized documents, questioning the basis of the addition. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to establish the documents' connection to the assessee or the occurrence of an on-money transaction. The Tribunal emphasized that the seized documents did not conclusively prove undisclosed investment and lacked evidence of unaccounted cash or seller's acknowledgment of on-money receipt.

2. Burden of Proof and Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents emphasizing the Revenue's burden to prove allegations of understatement or concealment. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in relevant cases, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Revenue to substantiate claims of on-money transactions. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to meet this burden in the present case, as the alleged on-money transactions were not convincingly proven. Additionally, the Tribunal relied on past judgments where similar additions based on loose sheets and conflicting statements were deleted by higher courts, reinforcing the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 60,36,000. The Tribunal reasoned that since the on-money transactions were not proven, the question of establishing the source of investment did not arise. By emphasizing the Revenue's failure to substantiate the allegations with concrete evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was not sustainable. The Tribunal's decision rested on the lack of conclusive proof of undisclosed investment and the absence of supporting evidence such as unaccounted cash or seller's acknowledgment of on-money receipt.

In summary, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the lack of concrete evidence linking the seized documents to the assessee and the absence of proof for on-money transactions, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the affirmation of the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition in question.