2017 (9) TMI 476 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - payment of on money to the seller - cogent reasons to believe - non application of independent mind by AO - addition on bases of suspicion - Held that - In the absence of any evidence or material on record as to how the assessee is connected with the alleged seller it is difficult to believe that assessee paid any on money to the seller. It therefore appears that the A.O. without applying his mind to the information provided to him reopened the assessment merely on suspicion. Ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of material on record correctly quashed the reopening of the assessment in the matter. It may also be noted here that no evidence has been brought on record as to whether assessee had paid any on money to the seller. The seized paper have not been found and recovered from the possession of the assessee. These are computerised sheets and have not been signed by the assessee. The seized papers were not in the name of the assessee. Therefore how these are admissible against the assessee in evidence has not been explained by the Revenue department. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore correctly held that even addition on merit is wholly unjustified. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 148
2. Addition of unexplained investment in property

Issue 1: Validity of notice under section 148
The appeal by Revenue challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the notice under section 148. The information received from the CIT, Central Circle, Dehradun, regarding a search and seizure operation in the case of Shri Parvinder Singh Kochar led to the assessment proceedings. The AO made an addition on account of unexplained investment in property purchased by the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the transaction details were not recorded in the name of the assessee but in the name of "Rajan." The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that there was no evidence connecting the assessee with the transactions mentioned in the loose sheets. The A.O. had not established any link between the assessee and Rajan, acting mechanically without proper appraisal of evidence. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reopening of the assessment and deleted the addition on merit due to lack of evidence against the assessee.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained investment in property
The AO's addition of unexplained investment in property purchased by the assessee was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the material on record, particularly the seized papers, and found that the loose sheets did not implicate the assessee directly. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the A.O. had not connected the assessee with the transactions mentioned in the seized documents. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that the A.O. had reopened the assessment without proper evidence or justification, merely on suspicion. The ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench in a similar case held that in the absence of evidence connecting the assessee with the transactions, the addition on merit was unjustified. The Tribunal confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reopening of the assessment and delete the addition. The issue was found to be covered in favor of the assessee based on the previous Tribunal's decision, leading to the dismissal of the department's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reopening of the assessment and delete the addition of unexplained investment in property, as there was insufficient evidence connecting the assessee with the transactions mentioned in the seized documents. The Tribunal found the issues in favor of the assessee based on the lack of proper justification for the additions made by the AO.