2016 (4) TMI 945 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69B on lands purchased in villages - on money received - Held that - Both the lower authorities are found to have heavily relied upon assessee s vendors statements in drawing inference of on money in question. We reiterate that this inference is not based on any evidence either in the statements directly or indirectly linking assessee to any incriminating evidence so as to reach to on money finding. We take note of the fact that the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its circular dated 10/03/2003 has already stated that such admission/confession made in course of search have to be based on the relevant evidence collected. Hon ble jurisdictional high court in Kailashben Manharlal Choksi vs. CIT (2008 (9) TMI 525 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) deals with a case of assessment year 1989-90 and holds identical situation after noting Board s circular that addition of undisclosed investments merely on search statement not supported by any evidence is not sustainable. We deem it appropriate to observe here that the impugned addition is also based on mere statements retracted within two months which nowhere names the assessee or establish any link to the alleged unexplained investments in question. We draw support from the above stated precedents for accepting assessee s arguments. The Revenue s submissions supporting the Assessing Officer s findings stand rejected. We delete entire addition made u/s. 69B of the Act qua lands purchased in villages Bavla and Kerala - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of unexplained investment additions under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of opportunity for cross-examination.
3. Correctness of reassessment proceedings.
4. Double taxation concerns.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Unexplained Investment Additions under Section 69B:
The Revenue's appeals focused on the CIT(A)'s partial deletion of unexplained investment additions under Section 69B. The CIT(A) had deleted portions of the additions for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged on-money payments. The assessee argued that the investments were accounted for in the firm's books, and the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions based on presumptive assumptions and statements from farmers without any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the statements of the vendors did not directly implicate the assessee and lacked corroborative evidence, leading to the deletion of the entire addition of ?28,37,245 for lands in Bavla and Kerala.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the statements of the farmers or allowing cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that the statements of the vendors were retracted within a short period, and the Assessing Officer did not verify the alleged on-money payments. The Tribunal emphasized the need for cross-examination and found that the CIT(A)'s findings contradicted the record, leading to the conclusion that the addition based on these statements was not sustainable.

3. Correctness of Reassessment Proceedings:
The reassessment proceedings were challenged by the assessee on the grounds that they were initiated based on insufficient evidence and without proper opportunity for defense. The Assessing Officer's reliance on vendors' statements, which were later retracted, was deemed insufficient for sustaining the additions. The Tribunal found that the reassessment lacked the necessary corroborative evidence and opportunity for cross-examination, rendering the additions unsustainable.

4. Double Taxation Concerns:
The assessee argued that the additions resulted in double taxation, as the firm M/s. Sopan Industrial Infrastructural Park had already been assessed for the same amount. The Tribunal acknowledged that the firm's reassessment included the entire addition of on-money payments, and thus, the additions in the individual cases would lead to double taxation. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions pertaining to the unexplained investments in Moti Bhoyan village to avoid double taxation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessees' appeals, concluding that the unexplained investment additions under Section 69B were not sustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence, violation of natural justice, and concerns of double taxation. The order was pronounced in the open court on 17-03-2016.