2024 (4) TMI 262 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153C - Additions made by revenue based on search findings in group cases of M/s SRS mining and its partners - as argued satisfaction of jurisdictional AO was based on reasons to suspect rather than on reasons to believe and the satisfaction was not based on independent application of mind but was on account of borrowed satisfaction - HELD THAT - We concur with the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) that the additions were made merely on the basis of dumb document which would not possess any stand-alone evidentiary value since it did not contain the complete particulars of the relevant transactions and the persons involved in the said transactions. The seized material did not contain complete information to facilitate drawing of such an inference as done by Ld. AO. There was no mention as to the nature of said transaction of cash payment, the purpose of such payment and precise identity of the assessee. There was no mention in the seized material as to whether the payment was made to a particular person in his own right or it was paid to him on behalf of another person. In the absence of such essential and critical information, it could not be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty that the payments were made to a person whose abbreviated names appeared therein and the said amount represents the income of the said persons including the assessee. An entry made in the diary or notebook by a third-person with scant details could not be used to fasten the tax liability on the persons whose abbreviated name appears therein, in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Such seized material was liable to be treated as dumb document which would not have any evidentiary value in respect of entries found therein in the absence of corroborative evidence which can provide necessary reliable basis for deciphering the nature and character of the said entries. The addition made on the basis of such a dumb document could not be sustained. We concur with these observations of Ld. CIT(A). Even if the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu from whose possession the said material was found and seized was to be considered, we find that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu do not directly implicate the assessee. He has only maintained the diary on the instructions of partners of M/s SRS Mining and his role is nothing more. The assessee has nowhere been named in the seized material. Therefore, the impugned additions would have no legs to stand. It is trite law that no addition could be made merely on the basis of presumption, conjectures or surmises. The ratio of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI 2017 (1) TMI 1164 - SUPREME COURT would squarely apply to the facts of the case. The ratio of decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sant Lal 2020 (3) TMI 692 - DELHI HIGH COURT would also apply wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that the entries found form the premises of a third-party could not form the basis of addition when the revenue failed to produce any other cogent material to link the assessee to the entries. We find that similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the conclusions drawn by Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, could not be faulted with. Appeal of the revenue, for all the three years, stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Legality of jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C.
3. Merits of additions based on seized material and statements.

Summary:

Condonation of Delay:
The Registry noted a delay of 16 days in the appeals filed by the assessee. Despite opposition from the Revenue, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were adjudicated on merits.

Jurisdiction u/s 153C:
The primary issue was the legality of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO under section 153C. The assessee argued that the AO failed to record necessary and valid satisfaction mandated u/s 153C. The Tribunal found that the AO of the assessee had received a satisfaction note from the AO of the searched person, which was primarily based on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu. The Tribunal held that the satisfaction required u/s 153C was prima-facie and did not need conclusive evidence at the stage of assuming jurisdiction. Therefore, the jurisdiction assumed by the AO was upheld for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18. However, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal quashed the assessment as it was beyond the jurisdictional period, following the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh.

Merits of Additions:
The additions were based on entries in seized materials and the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu, which allegedly indicated payments to the assessee, the then Highway Minister. The Tribunal noted that:
- The seized material did not explicitly name the assessee.
- The statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu was retracted, and he turned hostile.
- There was no corroborative evidence to support the entries in the seized material.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the seized material was a "dumb document" without standalone evidentiary value. The Tribunal emphasized that no addition could be made based on presumption or surmise. The burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish the conditions of taxability, which was not discharged. Consequently, the additions for all three years were deleted.

Conclusion:
The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed. The appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed, quashing the assessment for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds but allowed on merits.