2020 (2) TMI 562 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on the basis of the material seized during the course of the search - HELD THAT - We find that assessee has partly accepted the entries in the documents seized, which confirm that the documents were related to the assessee , but the assessee has failed to explain the balance entries reflected in those documents, and therefore, lower authorities are justified in sustaining the addition in dispute. As the assessee could explain part of the transaction recorded in seized material and the balance sale could not be reconciled by the assessee, and therefore in our opinion, the lower authorities are justified in sustaining the addition. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

Issues:
1. Assessment of additional income based on seized documents.
2. Consideration of unauthenticated documents as evidence.
3. Treatment of cash received from another party as income.
4. Addition based on unauthenticated documents.
5. Failure to consider detailed submissions during the hearing.
6. Justification of the additions made by lower authorities.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of Additional Income
The appellant challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of ?2,06,03,900, where relief of ?59,87,250 was granted. The Assessing Officer made additions based on seized documents during a search at M/s Kaartika Gold Enterprises. The appellant failed to explain certain transactions, leading to the additions. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal but upheld significant additions related to cash receipts and sale of jewelry. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the appellant did not provide explanations for the transactions recorded in the seized documents.

Issue 2: Consideration of Unauthenticated Documents
The appellant argued against the consideration of unauthenticated loose documents seized from another party, stating they lacked confirmation or signatures. The appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. However, the lower authorities upheld the additions based on these documents, as some entries matched the appellant's books of accounts, indicating a connection. The Tribunal found the lower authorities justified in relying on these documents to make the additions.

Issue 3: Treatment of Cash Received
Regarding the cash received from M/s KGE, the appellant contended that it was an advance and not income. The Assessing Officer, however, treated these cash receipts as unaccounted income, adding them back to the appellant's total income. The Tribunal upheld this treatment, stating that the appellant failed to reconcile these transactions adequately, justifying the addition of the cash amounts.

Issue 4: Addition Based on Unauthenticated Documents
The appellant challenged the addition of ?46,03,600, arguing against its sustainability based on unauthenticated documents. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the sale of gold/bullion transactions, leading to the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the appellant could not explain the unaccounted sale of gold/bullion adequately. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

Issue 5: Failure to Consider Detailed Submissions
The appellant raised concerns about the failure to consider detailed submissions during the hearing, specifically mentioning a submission dated February 27, 2017. However, the Tribunal noted that despite the detailed submissions, the appellant could not adequately explain the transactions in question, leading to the sustained additions by the lower authorities.

Issue 6: Justification of Additions
The Tribunal justified the additions made by the lower authorities, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide satisfactory explanations for the transactions reflected in the seized documents. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the additions, ultimately dismissing the appeal of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the additions made by the lower authorities based on the seized documents, the appellant's failure to explain transactions adequately, and the justifications provided by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

← Previous Next →