2012 (2) TMI 229 - AT - Income Tax

Search - Document seized indicated investments in Partnership firm - AO made additions on the basis of loose sheets found - Held That - When document talks at full length the Total Cost Involved . The cost also mentions about the bar licence fee stock and purchase cost. The seized document itself thus mentions about the initial contribution to be made by the partner at Rs. 1,50,000 and additional contribution of Rs 4,20,000. Reliance also placed on CIT vs Durga Das (1971 -TMI - 6269 - SUPREME Court), Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of undisclosed income under section 158BD based on seized documents indicating additional investments in a partnership firm beyond what was declared by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the confirmation of an assessment of Rs. 4,21,344 as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 158BD of the Income Tax Act. The dispute arose from seized documents during a search operation at a partnership firm's premises, indicating investments made by the assessee beyond what was declared. The assessing officer treated the additional investments as undisclosed income, leading to the appeal.

2. The main contention of the assessee was that the seized material, specifically document A-20, was unreliable and should not be considered as credible evidence. The assessee argued that the manager of the partnership firm, who prepared the documents, was not examined to verify their contents, questioning their authenticity.

3. On the contrary, the revenue authorities argued that the seized documents, containing minutes of partners' meetings and signatures, were reliable evidence. They contended that the additional investments made by the assessee were supported by the total project cost of the partnership firm, strengthening the case for treating them as undisclosed income.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the seized documents and the arguments presented. It noted that the documents were in the handwriting of the firm's manager, with the assessee acknowledging this fact. The Tribunal found it reasonable to assume that the manager, a responsible individual, accurately recorded details such as project costs and capital contributions.

5. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A), emphasizing that the seized documents were not mere scribblings but contained substantial information regarding the transactions and investments in the partnership firm. The Tribunal agreed that the additional investments aligned with the total project cost, as indicated in the seized documents, supporting the assessing officer's decision.

6. Citing the decision in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings that the circumstances and evidence presented in the seized documents supported the assessment of undisclosed income. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) regarding the assessment of undisclosed income based on the seized documents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision based on the arguments presented by the parties and the authenticity of the seized documents.