9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 1472 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment in the property - Addition based on seized papers - HELD THAT - Since no explanation of the assessee have been called for on the seized papers specifically, therefore even if presumption under section 292C lay against the assessee but fact remained that the revenue has also failed to explain about the entries contained in the seized paper. The assessee explained that these are rough notings and dumb documents and assessee did not make any investment in purchase of any of the property, therefore, it is for the revenue to explain that assessee actually made investment in some identified property. As noted above, the Assessing Officer merely presumed purchase of some property without having any area or location or identity of the property in it, therefore, on mere presumptions, such a huge addition against the assessee would be wholly unwarranted. Considering details noted in the seized paper, it is clear that the seized paper is merely a rough noting having mentioning the year 2003-04, therefore, Assessing Officer was not justified in interpreting the seized paper to be a purchase of property by assessee and others. The seized paper is, therefore, clearly dumb document and did not lead to anywhere so as to make any addition against the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the entire additions.
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 18,27,000 and Rs. 9,97,000. 2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 72,12,850. 3. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 16,72,000. 4. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 21,36,000. 5. Set-off of additional income surrendered of Rs. 15,15,000. 6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 35,15,400. 7. Addition on account of unexplained amount for Rs. 2,33,35,000. 8. Addition on account of unexplained amount for Rs. 1,87,35,000. 9. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 1.06 Cr to Rs. 10.6 lacs. 10. Credit of addition of Rs. 1.02 Cr against surrendered income. 11. Deletion of addition of Rs. 56,16,000. 12. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 34.19 lacs to Rs. 29 lacs. 13. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 54 lacs to Rs. 44 lacs. Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 18,27,000 and Rs. 9,97,000: The assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the basis of seized documents, arguing that no specific property or transaction details were mentioned. The CIT(A) restricted the additions to Rs. 6,09,000 and Rs. 3,32,333 respectively, based on the assessee's contribution and lack of evidence for additional investments. The Tribunal found the seized documents to be "dumb documents" and deleted the entire additions, concluding that the AO's presumptions were unwarranted. 2. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 72,12,850: The AO made the addition based on a seized document showing various plot investments. The CIT(A) found the document insufficiently descriptive and reduced the addition to Rs. 5 lacs, considering only the assessee's identifiable investment. The Tribunal found the document to be a canceled one and deleted the entire addition, noting the lack of corroborative evidence and examination of involved parties. 3. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 16,72,000: The AO interpreted a seized document as indicating a property sale and added the entire sale amount as the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal deleted it, noting the absence of any mention of property sale or corroborative evidence in the seized document. 4. Addition on account of unexplained investment in property for Rs. 21,36,000: The AO made the addition based on a canceled document indicating plot sales. The CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition but reduced it to Rs. 10,68,000. The Tribunal found the document to be a canceled one and deleted the entire addition, citing the lack of specific details and corroborative evidence. 5. Set-off of additional income surrendered of Rs. 15,15,000: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already declared Rs. 15 lacs as additional income for the assessment year under appeal. If any addition was to be made, the benefit of Rs. 15 lacs should be granted to the assessee. 6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 35,15,400: The AO made the addition based on a seized document with various amounts. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the document to be non-specific and not self-explanatory. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, agreeing that the document was a "dumb document" and did not lead to any inference. 7. Addition on account of unexplained amount for Rs. 2,33,35,000: The AO made the addition based on a seized document, but the CIT(A) found no basis for the figure and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting that the AO failed to explain how the figure was derived and that the document pertained to tenders of the company, not the individual assessee. 8. Addition on account of unexplained amount for Rs. 1,87,35,000: The AO made the addition based on a seized document with estimated figures. The CIT(A) found that the document pertained to a project completed in an earlier financial year and deleted the addition. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, agreeing that the document did not pertain to the individual assessee and lacked corroborative evidence. 9. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 1.06 Cr to Rs. 10.6 lacs: The AO made the addition based on a seized document interpreted as bribe payments. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 10.6 lacs, finding the AO's interpretation incorrect and giving credit for the surrendered amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of evidence for the AO's interpretation. 10. Credit of addition of Rs. 1.02 Cr against surrendered income: The AO made the addition based on a seized document with various amounts. The CIT(A) found totaling errors and directed the AO to give credit for the surrendered amount. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the revenue cannot take a different view on the same set of facts. 11. Deletion of addition of Rs. 56,16,000: The AO made the addition based on a seized document with various figures. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding the document non-specific and not indicative of unaccounted income. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, agreeing that the document was not self-explanatory and lacked corroborative evidence. 12. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 34.19 lacs to Rs. 29 lacs: The AO made the addition based on a seized document with various amounts. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 29 lacs, finding some entries non-specific and not indicative of unaccounted payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of specific details and corroborative evidence. 13. Restriction of addition on account of unexplained source of payment from Rs. 54 lacs to Rs. 44 lacs: The AO made the addition based on a seized document indicating payments received from Bindu. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 44 lacs, giving credit for a related payment in an earlier year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the regular exchange of funds between the assessee and Bindu and the lack of proper explanation from the assessee.
|
