9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 416 - AT - Income TaxAddition on the basis of such loose papers found from his premises - Held that - Since the assessee in the instant case was also denying from the very beginning that the assessee does not own any property at Byculla and documents relating to addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- and ₹ 4,02,000/- do not mention the name of the assessee nor are in the handwriting of the assessee, therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case on the basis of similar seized papers which has been upheld by the Hon ble High Court and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and natural justice in the assessment order. 2. Reasonable opportunity provided by the Assessing Officer. 3. Use of correspondence with M/s Omaxe Constructions Ltd. 4. Addition of ?3,00,000/- based on seized document. 5. Addition of ?4,02,000/- based on seized document. 6. Addition of ?15,91,000/- based on seized document. 7. Addition of ?22,93,000/- under Section 69C without evidence of expenditure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality and Natural Justice in the Assessment Order: The assessee contended that the assessment order was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions based on seized documents without substantial evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the AO to establish that the income is chargeable to tax. 2. Reasonable Opportunity Provided by the Assessing Officer: The assessee argued that the AO did not provide a reasonable opportunity before making the addition. The Tribunal observed that the AO had relied on documents found during a search but did not corroborate these documents with substantial evidence or give the assessee a fair chance to explain. 3. Use of Correspondence with M/s Omaxe Constructions Ltd.: The assessee claimed that the AO used correspondence with M/s Omaxe Constructions Ltd. against him without confronting him with the same. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the AO should have provided the assessee with an opportunity to address the correspondence. 4. Addition of ?3,00,000/- Based on Seized Document: The AO made an addition of ?3,00,000/- based on a piece of paper found during the search. The Tribunal noted that the document did not mention the assessee's name, was not in his handwriting, and did not specify the purpose of the payment. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was not justified as the document lacked evidentiary value. 5. Addition of ?4,02,000/- Based on Seized Document: The AO added ?4,02,000/- based on a handwritten paper found during the search. The Tribunal observed that the document did not have any date, did not mention the assessee's name, and did not indicate whether the figures were for receipt or payment. The Tribunal ruled that the addition was unjustified due to the lack of substantial evidence. 6. Addition of ?15,91,000/- Based on Seized Document: The AO made an addition of ?15,91,000/- related to a Byculla property based on seized documents. The assessee denied owning any property at Byculla, and the Tribunal found that the documents did not contain the assessee's name or handwriting. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions where similar additions were deleted and concluded that the addition was not justified. 7. Addition of ?22,93,000/- Under Section 69C Without Evidence of Expenditure: The AO made a cumulative addition of ?22,93,000/- under Section 69C based on the seized documents. The Tribunal found that the documents were not conclusive and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal cited previous judgments that uncorroborated loose papers cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income and directed the deletion of the addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for both assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence and the need for corroborative material to justify such additions. The Tribunal's decision was based on principles of natural justice and previous judgments that uncorroborated documents cannot be used as the sole basis for tax assessments.
|
