2015 (1) TMI 440 - HC - Income Tax

Violation of Sections 269SS and 269T - Receipt and payment of cash loan along with interest - Unexplained income - Surrender of Income - Tribunal deleted whole addition made by Assessing Officer - Held that - substantial surrender was made during the course of search. Reference was made to the statement of Yogesh Gupta wherein he had accepted that there were unaccounted for transactions in cash, but no question was put to him about the details of the writer or the recipient i.e. the details of the person, who had received the said amounts. At that time, the officers were duly satisfied with the investigation and the surrender. It is further recorded that the allegation that loans/deposits must have been taken in cash was a mere suspicion, which could have been a cause for further verification and investigation, but mere suspicion cannot be a ground to hold that loan/deposits were received in cash - Revenue has not filed before us any document or material to show that in fact loan was taken and interest payment was made. The persons to whom allegedly interest was paid, their details and particulars were not ascertained, verified and examined - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2015 (1) TMI 420 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Order of tribunal is not preverse - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. Legitimacy of additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 269SS and 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged cash loans and interest payments.
4. Examination of the evidence and statements related to alleged unaccounted transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Re-filing the Appeal:
The appeal was initially filed within the prescribed time but was returned due to office objections, leading to a delay of 650 days in re-filing. Before addressing the delay, the court examined the merits of the grounds of appeal. The court decided not to issue notice for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the application and the appeal.

2. Legitimacy of Additions Made by the Assessing Officer Under Sections 269SS and 269T:
The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee had violated Sections 269SS and 269T by taking and repaying loans in cash. The AO relied on documents found during a search operation, which purportedly indicated cash loan transactions. The AO's findings were based on decoded figures from a document found at the residence of an individual associated with the respondent company. The AO concluded that these figures represented cash loans and repayments, leading to additions in the income of the assessee.

3. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision to Delete the Additions:
The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO, providing detailed reasons. It noted that the AO's conclusions were based on presumptions without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the documents in question were found at the residence of an individual and not the assessee company. The Tribunal also highlighted that the individual had surrendered income during the search, and the Revenue had accepted this surrender, closing their investigation. The Tribunal found that the AO's assumptions about cash loans and interest payments were not substantiated by concrete evidence.

4. Examination of Evidence and Statements Related to Alleged Unaccounted Transactions:
The Tribunal scrutinized the statements made by the individual during the search and found no admission of cash loan transactions or interest payments. The Tribunal observed that the AO's findings were based on multiple presumptions, including the interpretation of loose papers as evidence of loans. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not provide any material evidence to support the AO's claims. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of corroborative evidence and the fact that the alleged transactions were already accounted for in the surrendered income.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the AO's conclusions were based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence. The Tribunal's decision to delete the additions was found to be factual and not perverse. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. The Revenue failed to provide any additional documents or evidence to substantiate the AO's claims, leading to the dismissal of the case.