2020 (3) TMI 469 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - unexplained sale consideration - Addition based on some computer generated loose sheets which was seized and found from the computer of another person - HELD THAT - Admitted fact that name of the assessee nowhere appeared in the said document albeit the name of Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia that he has entered into an agreement for sale of commercial property in Cross River Mall has been mentioned. This addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee for the reason that, firstly , the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the seized document; secondly , there is no corroborative evidence or any statement that the payment has been received by the assessee other than cheque amount as entered in the sale agreement; and lastly , on the bare perusal of the document it cannot be inferred or concluded that seized document belongs to or has any nexus with the assessee. Here, in this case, as pointed out by the ld. counsel similar matter had come for consideration before Tribunal in the case of Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia where exactly same addition has been made based on same seized documents that the amount is an unexplained investment. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the appeal filed by the Revenue has dealt with exactly the same seized document in the case of PCIT vs. Mrs. Vineeta Chaurasia 2017 (5) TMI 992 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Once on exactly same seized document the Hon ble High Court has decided this issue that this document does not belong to Mrs. Vineet Chaurasia nor any adverse inference can be drawn, therefore, in the case of the assessee whose name is not even was mentioned in the seized documents, no addition can be made. Accordingly, the said addition is deleted and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?7,62,92,143/- on account of unexplained sale consideration.
2. Onus of explaining the seized document.
3. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order and its basis.
4. Corroborative evidence for the alleged cash receipt.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of addition of ?7,62,92,143/- on account of unexplained sale consideration:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of ?7,62,92,143/- by the CIT(A), arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had validly inferred this amount as unexplained sale consideration received in cash by the assessee from Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia. The AO based this on a seized document from the premises of Mr. Lalit Modi, which allegedly indicated that the assessee received payments over and above the cheque payments for the sale of commercial space. However, the CIT(A) found that the document was a computer-generated loose sheet, not directly linked to the assessee, and lacked corroborative evidence to substantiate the addition.

2. Onus of explaining the seized document:
The CIT(A) held that the onus of explaining the seized document was not on the assessee, as the document was found in Mr. Lalit Modi's premises and not directly linked to the assessee. The document mentioned Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia but did not explicitly name the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that Mr. Modi described the document as containing rough calculations with no relevance to any transaction with the assessee. Moreover, Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia denied making any payments other than those agreed upon in the registered agreement.

3. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order and its basis:
The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was based on an unsubstantiated document without any corroborative evidence. The document did not mention the assessee, and no evidence indicated that the assessee received any amount other than the cheque payments. The CIT(A) also referenced a Tribunal order in Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia's case, where a similar addition was deleted due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) emphasized that the document was found in Mr. Modi's possession, who denied any dealings with the assessee, and the document was deemed a rough working with no established authorship.

4. Corroborative evidence for the alleged cash receipt:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the entire addition was based on a loose sheet found in Mr. Modi's possession, who denied any such transaction. The document did not mention the assessee, and no corroborative evidence or statements supported the claim that the assessee received payments other than by cheque. The Tribunal referenced a similar case involving Mr. Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, where the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The Tribunal concluded that the document did not belong to the assessee, and no addition could be made based on it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the addition of ?7,62,92,143/-. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the document to the assessee and the absence of corroborative material to substantiate the alleged cash receipt. The Tribunal's decision was consistent with prior judgments in similar cases, reinforcing the requirement for concrete evidence in such matters.