2024 (12) TMI 1424 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment u/s 153A - no incriminating material found in search - validity of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and effect on retraction statement - HELD THAT - When there is no incriminating document found, and the assessment year is 2012-13 no addition can be made except that is supported by incriminating document. We get support this view from the recent judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd 2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT wherein held no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. We also get support from judgment in the case of PCIT Vs. M/s. Esspal International P. Ltd. 2024 (9) TMI 652 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT stating that the merely based on the retracted statement no addition can be made. No reason to sustain the addition and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.

2008 (11) TMI 23 - SC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:

Whether the additions and disallowances made under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were justified.
The validity of the statement recorded under Section 132(4) and its subsequent retraction.
Whether the assessment orders were validly passed with the necessary approvals under Section 153D.
The applicability of interest charges under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act.
The legality of the assessment orders in the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Additions and Disallowances under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

Legal Framework and Precedents: The assessment under Section 153A is triggered by a search under Section 132. The legal framework requires that any additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the addition of Rs. 55,00,000 was based on the statement recorded during the search, which was later retracted by the assessee. The court emphasized that additions should be based on corroborative evidence, not solely on retracted statements.
Key Evidence and Findings: The statement recorded under Section 132(4) was considered crucial. However, the court found that the retraction was not substantiated with evidence, and the statement was made under duress.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that retracted statements without corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis for additions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the arguments regarding the validity of the statement and the lack of corroborative evidence, ultimately siding with the assessee.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the addition of Rs. 55,00,000 was not justified as it was based solely on a retracted statement without corroborative evidence.

Issue 2: Validity of Statement under Section 132(4) and Retraction

Legal Framework and Precedents: Statements recorded under Section 132(4) are considered evidence but are not conclusive if retracted with valid reasons and evidence.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that the statement made during the search lacked credibility due to its retraction and the circumstances under which it was recorded.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence supporting the statement and the undue pressure claimed by the assessee.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that retracted statements require corroborative evidence to be valid for additions.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court favored the assessee's argument that the statement was made under duress and lacked corroborative evidence.
Conclusions: The court found the retraction valid and the statement insufficient for supporting the addition.

Issue 3: Approval under Section 153D

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153D requires prior approval from a senior officer before passing an assessment order in search cases.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court scrutinized the approval process and found it lacking due to the mechanical manner in which it was granted.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the approval was granted on the same day for multiple cases, indicating a lack of due diligence.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that approvals must reflect due application of mind and not be mere formalities.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court rejected the revenue's argument that the approval process was sufficient.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the approval was invalid due to the lack of proper application of mind.

Issue 4: Interest Charges under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

Legal Framework and Precedents: Interest under these sections is mandatory if there is a delay in filing returns or paying advance tax.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that interest charges are consequential to the assessment and should be computed accordingly.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the assessee's argument that interest should not be charged due to the invalidity of the assessment.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that interest is consequential and must follow the assessment outcome.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the assessee's argument but upheld the interest charges as a consequence of the assessment.
Conclusions: The court concluded that interest charges were valid but subject to the outcome of the assessment.

Issue 5: Absence of DIN

Legal Framework and Precedents: The absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) can render an assessment order invalid.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court did not consider this issue as it was not pressed by the assessee.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the issue was not pursued by the assessee.
Application of Law to Facts: The court did not apply the legal framework due to the lack of pursuit by the assessee.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court did not address this issue due to its abandonment by the assessee.
Conclusions: The court did not make a determination on this issue.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes: "The statement recorded during the course of search action which was in presence of independent witnesses has overriding effect over the subsequent retraction."
Core Principles Established: The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support statements recorded during search and the requirement for proper approval under Section 153D.
Final Determinations: The court allowed the appeals, concluding that the additions were not justified due to the lack of corroborative evidence and invalid approval process.

← Previous Next →