2012 (10) TMI 95 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Because of the mention of the name of one Mithlesh Singh found on document seized during search it was presumed that there must be some contract for the purchase of property from Mithlesh Singh and against that the said amount of Rs.36,00,000/- has been paid by the assessee. The very foundation of this assumption is the name of Mithlesh Singh on the paper seized, but apart from this there is no fact on record nor any inquiry was held by the AO to find out any transaction that in fact there was any transaction with Mithlesh Singh, relating to the immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 52,00,000/- as has been presumed by the AO in its order as well as in the questionnaire given to the assessee. This presumption cannot be held to be proper in any manner without there being any further inquiry or material on record - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disputed finding by C.I.T.(Appeals) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding unexplained investment.
2. Explanation provided by the assessee regarding transactions found on seized papers.
3. Assertion of the appellant that the seized document should be considered as a whole.
4. Presumption of payment to Mithlesh Singh for immovable property purchase based on the seized document.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appellant's challenge against the findings of the C.I.T.(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the addition of Rs.36,00,000 as unexplained investment to the total income. The case originated from the seizure of loose papers during a search at the assessee's premises, prompting the assessing officer to question the nature of transactions amounting to Rs.52,00,000. The appellant explained that these figures pertained to planning for margin money payment for a term loan, but the assessing officer rejected this explanation, leading to the addition of Rs.36,00,000 to the total income.

The C.I.T.(Appeals) noted the explanation provided by the assessee and found no adverse findings regarding the declared income in the return. The C.I.T.(Appeals) highlighted the lack of reasons provided by the assessing officer for disregarding the assessee's explanation related to the seized papers, which were verifiable from the books of account. Additionally, the absence of further details or evidence of investment beyond the seized document was emphasized. The Tribunal upheld the C.I.T.(Appeals)'s findings, indicating a thorough review of the facts and lack of substantial evidence supporting the addition to the income.

The appellant contended that the seized document should be considered in its entirety and not in part, raising concerns about the presumption of payment to Mithlesh Singh for immovable property purchase based solely on the mention of the name. However, the judgment highlighted the insufficiency of factual basis or inquiries supporting this presumption, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in tax assessments. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no legal questions were involved in the case, thereby affirming the decisions of the C.I.T.(Appeals) and the Tribunal.