2012 (7) TMI 584 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained investment in the wrist watches - A.O. has made this addition on the ground that the appellant has not produced any bills or other evidence in support of the contention that these watches were covered with the withdrawals made by the family members of the appellant Held that - There was sufficient withdrawals shown by the family members which could cover the purchase of the wrist watches - normally bills of such items like watches are not preserved for record - Assessing Officer has not made any specific or exact investigations or market enquiries which could establish the estimation of value of these watches - value of the wrist watches adopted by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary In favor of asssessee Addition made u/s 69A of the Act - search and seizure - cash was found at the residence of the assessee - assessee has stated during the search itself that the cash found belongs to MR. Educational Institution - A.O. has made this addition on the ground that sources of this cash have not been explained by the appellant Held that - Cash books were duly produced before the A.O. Copies of the relevant pages of cash books were also filed by the appellant during the appeal proceedings as part of the paper book - If the A.O was not satisfied with the authenticity of the entries made in the cash books, some enquiries could have been made to prove so. However, in the absence of such enquiries or evidence, the A.O. cannot be said to be justified at all to make addition considering this cash to be unexplained In favor of assessee Addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and undisclosed income addition made on the basis of document seized during search - assessee has denied any relationship with the document at the time of search itself - The document is denied to be in handwriting of the assessee or handwriting of any family member Held that - Revenue has failed to collect any corroborative material which could explain the real character of the transaction - document is not clear it does not give any conclusive and meaningful conclusion in respect of the transactions. It also does not establish the correct nature of the transaction. The revenue has failed to collect corroborative evidence to establish the correctness of the transaction recorded in the loose paper - appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained investment in wrist watches.
2. Deletion of addition made under section 69A on account of unexplained cash/money.
3. Deletion of addition made on account of unexplained investment and undisclosed income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Investment in Wrist Watches:
The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made an addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- for unexplained investment in wrist watches. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, reasoning that the withdrawals shown by the assessee's family were sufficient to cover the purchase of the wrist watches. The CIT (A) noted that bills for such items are typically not retained, especially when purchased out of household expenses. The A.O.'s market enquiries were deemed insufficient and not adequately substantiated. The CIT (A) found that the total cost of the watches, as per the manufacturers' websites, was Rs. 26,940/-, which was well within the withdrawals made by the family. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), stating that the A.O.'s valuation was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition.

2. Deletion of Addition Made Under Section 69A on Account of Unexplained Cash/Money:
During a search operation, cash amounting to Rs. 9,30,850/- was found at the assessee's residence. The assessee claimed that this cash belonged to Manav Rachna Educational Society and M/s. Techplast India Pvt. Ltd. The CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs. 1,90,650/- made under section 69A, noting that the assessee consistently maintained that the cash belonged to the aforementioned entities. The cash books of these entities were produced, and no manipulations were pinpointed by the A.O. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal, as the A.O. failed to provide evidence of manipulation or defects in the cash book entries. Thus, the deletion of the addition was upheld.

3. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Unexplained Investment and Undisclosed Income:
The revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- and Rs. 33,050/- made on account of unexplained investment and undisclosed income. The A.O. based the addition on a seized document (Annexure A-3) that purportedly calculated interest on Rs. 30 lacs. The assessee denied any connection to the document, stating it was neither in his handwriting nor did it bear any signatures. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. The Tribunal noted that the document was a "dumb document" with no corroborative evidence to establish the nature of the transaction. The revenue failed to provide any additional evidence linking the document to the assessee. The Tribunal cited several case laws supporting the view that additions cannot be made based on such uncorroborated documents.

General Grounds:
Ground Nos. 4 and 5 were deemed general in nature and did not require adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s deletions of the additions on all grounds. The judgment emphasized the need for substantive evidence and corroborative material to support additions made during assessments.