2024 (3) TMI 198 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained income and undisclosed interest - additions were made on the basis of incriminating documents extracted from the mobile phone of the assessee during the course of search proceedings - as per DR assessee has failed to furnish any credible evidences or explanation in respect of the entries found therein - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT - AO has not recorded in the assessment order whether such image/photo was received by assessee in WhatsApp image or it was sent. The source of image was not investigated by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned whether such image was confronted to the assessee during the search action or his statement was recorded for such image. Thus, in absence of any corroborative evidence, we do not find any justification for making such addition. Hon ble Supreme Court in Common Cause Vs Union of India 2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT also held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant as evidence being not admissible u/s 34, so as to constitute evidence with respect to transaction mentioned therein being of no evidentiary value. Thus, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) on our aforesaid additional observation. Unexplained money and unexplained interest - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - AO on the basis of images recovered from the mobile phone of Naresh Agarwal assumed that the assessee advanced Rs. 13.30 crores and earned interest of Rs. 3.72 crores. The figure of principal amount and interest amount in no why can be correlate with each other. Unless and until such principal amount was lent for years together. Alleged interest figure of Rs. 3.72 crores is more than 30% of alleged principal amount which is beyond imagination. AO added five zeros against the figure of 13.30 and added only two zero against the interest which is again without any rational. Thus, we do not find any justification for making such addition in crores without any independent or corroborative material on record. At least such figure or incriminating material should have been confronted with Naresh Agarwal to explain it in a better way. There is no material on record to suggest that such figure was confronted with Naresh Agarwal nor addition is based on his statement. Thus, with the aforesaid additional observation, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A). In the result, ground No. 2 of appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 69B - revenue submits that during the search action, jewellery and other valuable articles were found - HELD THAT - We find that the AO made addition ignoring the fact that Panchnama contained the name of all lady members of the family. All three female members were assessed to tax as well as to wealth tax. AO simply made the addition by allowing relief as per CBDT Circular No. 1916 of 1994. We find that the entire jewellery consisting of gold and diamond were shown in the Wealth tax Return and was declared before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. We find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is based on proper appreciation of facts. No contrary fact to take other view is brought to our notice, therefore, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) with our additional observation. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 69C - Unexplained expenditure - addition on the basis of image found from the digital device of assessee which contained the transaction related to furniture - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) on appreciation of writing on the digital image found that there is not detail of seller or buyer in the image. No corroborative evidence was found with regard to existence of furniture in the residential or official premises of assessee. There are no details of payment made in cash or cheque whether furniture was really purchased or not is not clear on the image. AO made addition merely on the basis of WhatsApp image without ascertaining whether such furniture was purchased or not, so such addition cannot be sustained. We find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any corroborative evidence to support the addition. Such digital image was not confronted with the assessee or with any other family members. Thus, we do not find any justification of making addition merely on the basis of details found in the digital device particularly in absence whether such image was sent or received by the assessee. Thus, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A). In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained money - CIT(A) deleted the entire addition by taking a view that said packet contained the name of Vijay Jain - HELD THAT - AO neither summoned Vijay Jain nor recorded his statement to ascertain the exact details about the said packet (Image). The ld. CIT(A) held that the addition of Rs. 3.00 lacs is made solely on presumption basis. In fact, this packet was received or not is not clear as it contains the name and address and not to the name and address. CIT(A) held that merely on the basis of figure mentioned on the image of packet cannot be basis for making addition by adding three zeros to the figure and deleted the addition. We find that the addition is based on assumption without verification of fact. We find that the AO has not made any independent investigation or verification whether mobile number written is correct or not. No such effort, if made, is recorded in the assessment order, thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of ld. CIT(A) which we affirm. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Unexplained money u/s 69A - CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer merely relied on presumption that noting mentioned on the same page elating to other land in Kuberji group, thus, this land is related to assessee, thus deleted addition - HELD THAT - There is no corroborative evidence, the same is merely based on presumption. There is no detail from whom such land was purchased or to whom such consideration was paid. No such fact is brought on record. If such land is sold to whom the land is sold and from whom the sale consideration is received is not brought on record. There is no reference or location or situation of land, all facts are totally absent in the assessment order. CIT(A) held that loose paper found in the search is not in the handwriting of assessee so it cannot be made a basis for addition. The addition could be made when there is some corroborative evidence brought on record. There is no corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee received payment or receipt of any amount on the transaction. CIT(A) held that such loose paper is nothing but a dump document which cannot be relied solely for making huge addition. On independent examination of facts, we find that neither the Assessing Officer has brought any corroborative evidence nor further investigated the fact nor referred any corroborative evidence if collected during the search action by the Investigation Wing. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) which we affirm. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Appeal of revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 24,70,787/- under Section 69A.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 17,02,40,000/- under Section 69A.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,04,39,999/- under Section 69B.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- under Section 69C.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 69A.
6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 34,56,00,000/- under Section 69A.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 24,70,787/- under Section 69A
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 24,70,787/- based on an image found in the assessee's iPhone during a search, which allegedly indicated unaccounted cash loans and interest. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, noting that the image lacked corroborative evidence, did not contain names or signatures, and was not substantiated by any direct evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that loose sheets of paper are not admissible as evidence under Section 34.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 17,02,40,000/- under Section 69A
The AO added Rs. 17.02 crores based on an image found in the digital device of a third party, Naresh Agarwal, which allegedly indicated a loan transaction involving the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the image was found on a third party's device, lacked corroborative evidence, and was not supported by any direct evidence or statements from Naresh Agarwal. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the addition without corroborative material.

Issue 3: Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,04,39,999/- under Section 69B
The AO added Rs. 1.04 crore based on jewellery found during a search, which was allegedly unexplained. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the jewellery belonged to female family members of the assessee, was shown in their wealth tax returns, and was disclosed before the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the jewellery was adequately explained and accounted for.

Issue 4: Deletion of addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- under Section 69C
The AO added Rs. 5.30 lakh based on an image found in the assessee's digital device, which allegedly indicated unexplained expenditure on furniture. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of corroborative evidence, details of the seller or buyer, and any proof of payment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no justification for the addition without supporting evidence.

Issue 5: Deletion of addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 69A
The AO added Rs. 3 lakh based on an image found in the assessee's digital device, which allegedly indicated unexplained money. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the image contained the name and mobile number of Vijay Jain, who was not summoned or questioned. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the addition to be based on assumptions without verification.

Issue 6: Deletion of addition of Rs. 34,56,00,000/- under Section 69A
The AO added Rs. 34.56 crores based on a document found during a search, which allegedly indicated a land transaction. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the lack of details about the land, corroborative evidence, and any direct proof of the transaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the document to be a dump document without any supporting evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s deletions of all the additions made by the AO due to lack of corroborative evidence, reliance on assumptions, and absence of direct proof.