2021 (6) TMI 197 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on noting made in scribbling pad found and seized - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the AO has completely brushed aside the explanation of the assessee on the contents of the diary. AO has not taken into account, the contents of the scribbling pad and the explanation of the assessee together while making the assessment. AO has not even considered the gross amounts mentioned in the diary. He has enhanced the gross receipts with designing charges / commission which was deducted at source. AO ought to have considered the entire material available in the diary in toto together with the explanation offered by the assessee. If the AO had considered entire material i.e., diary along with the explanation offered by the assessee, there is no case for making the addition in the instant case. Thus, the case laws above are squarely applicable to the assessee s case. AO in the assessment order for the A.Y. 2016-17 given a finding that noting is nothing but unaccounted profit earned from various businesses run by B.Venkateswarlu and his two sons and observed that out of this unaccounted profit, they were using the unaccounted profit for money lending business, personal drawings and unaccounted reserve. From reading of the assessment order, it is clear that the AO himself has accepted that the notings mentioned in the diary does not pertain to the assessee company, hence, the AO did not make out a case that the notings made in the diary was related to the assessee company. Thus the addition made by the AO in the hands of the company is unsustainable, hence, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Validity of Additions Based on Scribbling Pad
3. Assessment of Undisclosed Income
4. Extrapolation of Income
5. Evidentiary Value of Loose Sheets

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay:
The appeals were filed beyond the stipulated period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court extended the limitation period, allowing these appeals to be treated as filed within the permissible time frame.

2. Validity of Additions Based on Scribbling Pad:
During a search, a scribbling pad was seized from the residence of one of the directors, containing handwritten notations of various receipts and payments. The Assessing Officer (AO) interpreted these notations as the company's net profit and made additions to the income based on these figures. The assessee contended that these entries represented gross receipts after deducting commissions and were already accounted for in the books. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held that the scribbling pad was a "dumb document" and not sufficient evidence for making additions without corroborative evidence.

3. Assessment of Undisclosed Income:
The AO extrapolated the data from the scribbling pad to estimate the annual income and added it as undisclosed income. The assessee argued that this extrapolation was unjustified and based on assumptions. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, stating that the AO's approach was incorrect and lacked corroborative evidence to support the claim of undisclosed income.

4. Extrapolation of Income:
The AO extrapolated the figures from the scribbling pad for five months to estimate the annual income for the financial year 2014-15 and similarly for the financial year 2015-16. The assessee argued that such extrapolation was arbitrary and not supported by any substantial evidence. The CIT(A) found that the AO's method was based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence, thus invalidating the additions.

5. Evidentiary Value of Loose Sheets:
The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that loose sheets or notations without corroborative evidence do not have substantial evidentiary value. The Tribunal concluded that the AO failed to provide corroborative evidence to support the additions based on the scribbling pad. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, emphasizing that the AO did not discharge the onus of proving that the notations represented undisclosed income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A) that the additions based on the scribbling pad were unjustified. The scribbling pad was deemed a "dumb document" without corroborative evidence, and the extrapolation of income was found to be arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the cross-objections filed by the assessee as infructuous.

← Previous Next →