2012 (12) TMI 721 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income - Block Assessment Held that - As seen from the impugned document, it is just a signed by a single party which was found in the course of search action at the assessee premises. The impugned document is only circumstantial evidence which required to be corroborated with other evidence. Though there is no necessity in law that the assessing officer is supposed to discharge tax liability by direct evidence only, there should be enough evidence to support the addition. The circumstances surrounding the case were not strong enough to justify the rejection of assessee s plea as outrageous. On consideration of the assessee s arguments, no rejection of the same is called for on the reason that the sale agreement dated 6.2.98 is only a Xerox copy signed by the assessee alone and not by the vendees. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Moosa Madha & Azam S. Madha vs. CIT (1973 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT) that Photostat copies have very little evidentiary value. Being so, Xerox copies of any document cannot be itself considered as evidence for the purpose of making addition in this assessment. Further the consideration at Rs. 12.25 lakhs per acre cannot be said to have been paid as the transfer has not materialised and litigation is going on. Further the payment of Rs. 1 crore to Smt. Savitramma is also not supported by proper evidence to bring the same into taxation in the block assessment. Thus the unsigned document is a dumb document and cannot be relied upon for making addition in this case - in favour of assessee Levy of interest u/s. 158BFA - Held that - Levying of interest u/s. 158BFA is consequential and mandatory and no adjudication is required on this issue - appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 158BD.
2. Determination of the consideration paid for the acquisition of property.
3. Computation of undisclosed income.
4. Appealability of interest under Section 158BFA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 158BD:
The assessee argued that the notice under Section 158BD was not valid and the consequential assessment was bad in law. However, this ground was not pressed before the Tribunal and was dismissed as not pressed.

2. Determination of the Consideration Paid for Acquisition of Property:
The main contention revolved around the actual consideration paid for the acquisition of the property. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the cost of 85 acres 32 guntas at Rs. 12.25 lakh per acre, inclusive of commission paid to middlemen, arriving at a total of Rs. 10,51,05,000. The AO deducted the amount recorded in the books (Rs. 2,87,03,085) and computed the undisclosed income as Rs. 7,63,41,915. The assessee contended that only Rs. 2,87,63,085 was paid and no additional amount was paid beyond this. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to establish the genuineness of the documents and relied heavily on an FIR lodged by a third party without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that the unsigned document found during the search had very little evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for making the addition.

3. Computation of Undisclosed Income:
The AO determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 7,23,86,910 by considering the total acquisition price at Rs. 10,11,50,000 and deducting the consideration recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found that the AO's computation was based on presumptions and unsupported documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the block assessment should be based on seized material and not on presumptions. The Tribunal referred to various judgments to support its view that the Revenue must prove that the actual consideration passed between the parties exceeded the amount declared in the books of account. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence collected by the Revenue authorities was insufficient to establish that the total consideration passed between the parties was Rs. 10,11,50,000 instead of Rs. 2,87,63,085. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

4. Appealability of Interest under Section 158BFA:
The CIT(A) held that interest under Section 158BFA is not appealable. The Tribunal noted that the levy of interest under Section 158BFA is consequential and mandatory, requiring no further adjudication.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the addition made by the AO on the basis of unsupported documents and presumptions. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adequate and conclusive evidence to sustain additions in block assessments. The appeal regarding the levy of interest under Section 158BFA was dismissed as it was consequential and mandatory.

← Previous Next →