2016 (12) TMI 556 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav - Assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153 - whether the addition can be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav, when there is no material placed on record that Shri Hanuman Yadav has made any claim against the assessee in any court of law seeking cancellation of sale deed or filing a recovery suit? - Held that - As held in case of Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal 2013 (6) TMI 497 - ITAT JAIPUR that in the absence of any conclusive evidence the document could not have been disbelieved. The ld. D/R could not point out any binding precedent wherein it has been held that the oral statement would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the case above We are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law. It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion. Therefore, considering the totality of facts of the present case, we hereby direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of undisclosed investment based on seller's statement
2. Denial of liability to pay interest under sections 234A and 234B

Issue 1: Addition of Undisclosed Investment based on Seller's Statement

The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT (A) pertaining to the assessment year 2007-08. The primary issue was the addition of &8377; 30,92,000/- as undisclosed investment, based on discrepancies between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and the statements of the sellers, Shri Hanuman Yadav and Shri Madan Singh. The AO made the addition primarily relying on Shri Hanuman Yadav's statement, which conflicted with the sale deed amounts. The ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition in part, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

The assessee contended that the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that oral evidence should not override documentary evidence. The assessee cited various legal precedents to support this argument. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and noted that the AO's addition was solely based on Shri Hanuman Yadav's statement, without concrete evidence supporting the claim or any legal challenge to the sale deed. Relying on a prior Tribunal decision and legal principles, the Tribunal held that in the absence of conclusive evidence, the document (sale deed) could not be disregarded. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition based on Shri Hanuman Yadav's statement.

Issue 2: Denial of Liability to Pay Interest under Sections 234A and 234B

The appellant also denied liability to pay interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. However, this issue was not extensively discussed in the judgment. The denial of liability was briefly mentioned, and the Tribunal's decision on this matter was not elaborated upon in detail. It appears that the denial of interest liability did not play a significant role in the overall decision-making process of the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the addition based on the seller's statement, directing the AO to delete the contested amount. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on the grounds of maintainability as per a CBDT Circular. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal arguments presented, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence and legal precedents in determining the validity of additions in income tax assessments.