9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B of the IT Act. 2. Justification of the addition based on seized documents. 3. Validity of statements recorded during post-search inquiry. 4. Acceptance of additional supporting evidence. Summary of Judgment Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 69B of the IT Act The department objected to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,00,19,492/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 69B of the IT Act. The AO had added this amount as undisclosed investment in land. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this addition, concluding that the AO's decision was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the actual investment with positive material. Issue 2: Justification of the Addition Based on Seized Documents The AO relied on a seized document (Page 37 of Annexure A-57) which allegedly indicated the actual cost of the land. The AO interpreted the figures in the document as representing the cost of the land, but the Ld. CIT (A) found this interpretation unsubstantiated. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the document lacked any clear indication of whether the figures represented cost, market value, or another metric. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide a logical explanation for the figures in the other columns of the document. Issue 3: Validity of Statements Recorded During Post-Search Inquiry The AO rejected the affidavit filed by Shri Pawan Lashkary, which explained the figures in the seized document as estimates for a joint venture. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided any positive evidence to disprove the affidavit's contents. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had rejected the post-search statements made by Shri Pawan Lashkary, which further weakened the AO's case. Issue 4: Acceptance of Additional Supporting Evidence The department sought to introduce additional supporting evidence, including statements from original landowners, to justify the addition. The Tribunal refused to accept this additional evidence, noting that it was not considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that any evidence used against the assessee must be confronted to the assessee, and the assessee must be given an opportunity for cross-examination, which was not done in this case. Conclusion The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,00,19,492/-. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on unsubstantiated assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also refused to accept additional supporting evidence introduced by the department at a later stage. The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was treated as infructuous.
|
