2019 (7) TMI 791 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained investments u/s 69B - alleged cash payment for purchase of land - search proceedings - purchase value varies from the figures noted in the diary found in search - HELD THAT - Revenue while recording the statement u/s 132(4) even at the time of search and at the time of assessment could not bring out anything on record to prove are corroborate the diary noting. It has been the consistent stand of the assessee that these are estimates in the statements recorded. No evidence of cash payment or generation of cash or physical cash pertaining to the assessee found at the time of search. Revenue did not enquire on the side of sellers of the plots to prove anything contra as put forward by the assessee. Thus, what we have on record is a mere noting of the diary which in the absence of any other corroborative evidence cannot be utilized for making addition u/s 69B. As far as the Revenue is concern there are no evidences on record to prove unexplained investments. The paper in question does not indicate that in the transaction cash payment has ever taken place because it does not contain any information as to what was the cheque amount or cash amount, what was the date of the transaction, what did the figure noted on the piece of paper represent, and whether in any manner the paper in question has any relevance to the determination of the income in the hands of the assessee. No evidence has been brought on record to corroborate the allegation that the assessee had paid cash. As find from the returns of the assessee, filed for the assessment year 2011-12 and 2012-13 and also the 143(3) order for the assessment year 2012-13 that the Revenue itself has accepted the capital gains declared by the assessee taking into consideration the amount declared in the registered documents. No action has been taken by the Revenue to dispute the cost of acquisition pertaining to the properties in question. By accepting the capital gains declared by the assessee the Revenue has made a self goal pertaining to the addition made in the earlier years (though this is not the only reason to delete the addition). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A)(Central) - Addition of deemed income under section 69B - Estimation of market price of plots - Meticulously mentioned figures in diary - Assessee's explanation - Corroborative evidence - Acceptance of capital gains in subsequent years.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)(Central) confirming an addition of deemed income under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer added amounts mentioned in a seized diary towards the income of the assessee, considering them as specific noting rather than rough figures. The assessee argued that the figures reflected estimated market prices of purchased plots for disposal purposes, supported by registration deeds and affidavits from sellers. The Ld. AR reiterated that the figures were not the true cost but market prices. The Ld. AR also highlighted the plot sizes and clarified the purpose of the diary entries, emphasizing the lack of evidence of cash payments. The Revenue, however, argued that the diary contents represented cash and collector values of plots, supporting the AO's decision. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition under section 69B, emphasizing the meticulous details in the diary and lack of confidence in the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal analyzed the diary entries and purchase costs, noting discrepancies and lack of corroborative evidence for cash payments. It highlighted the absence of proof of cash transactions and the Revenue's acceptance of capital gains based on registered documents in subsequent years. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of distinct proofs for unexplained investments under section 69B, which were lacking in this case. It concluded that without corroborative evidence of cash payments, the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue's acceptance of capital gains without disputing acquisition costs, further supporting the decision to allow the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of evidence for unexplained investments and the Revenue's acceptance of capital gains based on registered documents. The decision highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence for additions under section 69B and the inconsistency in the Revenue's actions regarding the acquisition costs of the properties in question.