2021 (8) TMI 295 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of receipt of alleged on money consideration at the time of sale of the property - HELD THAT - We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of law that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. CIT(A) had merely confirmed the assessment order without looking into the substance of the terms and conditions entered between the appellant and SPPL, confirmed addition merely based on the uncorroborated notings on assumptions and conjuctures. The lower authorities had failed to note that the notings does not clearly indicate that the amount was paid only to the appellant herein. The orders of both the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) were set aside and directed the Assessing Officer to deleted the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notice under Section 153A and assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A.
2. Addition of ?5,31,58,400 as undisclosed sale consideration based on alleged receipt of cash over the declared consideration.
3. Reliance on statements of third parties without corroborative evidence.
4. Denial of cross-examination opportunity for the appellant.
5. Contradictory reliance on statements of directors of SPPL.
6. Alleged receipt of cash in October 2014, post sale deed registration.
7. Transaction conducted at stamp duty value without evidence of actual cash component.
8. Non-compliance with jurisdictional High Court decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 153A and assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A:
The appellant initially contested the validity of the notice issued under Section 153A and the subsequent assessment order. However, during the proceedings, the appellant did not press this ground, indicating acceptance of the procedural validity of the notice and assessment.

2. Addition of ?5,31,58,400 as undisclosed sale consideration based on alleged receipt of cash over the declared consideration:
The core issue was the addition of ?5,31,58,400 as undisclosed sale consideration. The Assessing Officer based this addition on loose sheets and statements from SPPL's directors, claiming cash payments over the declared sale consideration. The appellant argued that no such cash payment was received and highlighted that the sale deed was executed by Thakkers Developers Ltd., not them, as they had relinquished their rights via a Development Agreement in 1995.

3. Reliance on statements of third parties without corroborative evidence:
The appellant contended that the addition was based solely on third-party statements without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the directors' statements did not specifically mention the appellant receiving the cash. The Tribunal emphasized that additions cannot be made on uncorroborated statements and loose sheets without independent evidence.

4. Denial of cross-examination opportunity for the appellant:
The appellant was initially denied the opportunity to cross-examine Mrs. Sweta Keni Kataria, whose statement was used against them. The Tribunal acknowledged this procedural lapse, noting that reliance on statements without cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.

5. Contradictory reliance on statements of directors of SPPL:
The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer selectively relied on parts of the directors' statements while ignoring others. The directors, during cross-examination, indicated that negotiations were handled by a broker, not directly by the appellant. This inconsistency weakened the Revenue's case.

6. Alleged receipt of cash in October 2014, post sale deed registration:
The Tribunal found it implausible that the alleged cash payment occurred almost a year after the sale deed's registration. This temporal discrepancy further undermined the credibility of the addition.

7. Transaction conducted at stamp duty value without evidence of actual cash component:
The appellant argued that the transaction was conducted at the stamp duty value, with no evidence of additional cash payments. The Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the Revenue's claim of cash payments over the declared consideration.

8. Non-compliance with jurisdictional High Court decisions:
The appellant cited the Bombay High Court decision in Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and Pune ITAT's decision in Thakkers Developers Ltd. The Tribunal agreed that these precedents support the appellant's position, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence for additions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the addition of ?5,31,58,400 was based on presumptions and assumptions without corroborative evidence. It highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged cash payments and the procedural lapses in denying cross-examination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), directing the deletion of the addition. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.