2016 (6) TMI 644 - HC - Income Tax

Addition based on the evidences seized during the course of search - Held that - It is not in dispute that the basis for the addition made is page 1 of loose papers A/1/MKP seized not from the possession of the assessee but from the office premises of M/s. Mookambika Promoters belonging to the S.Chandrasekhar group of concerns. The learned CIT (Appeals) has observed that the document contains entries suggesting money transactions related to a property deal, between the assessee and Shri.S.Chandrasekhar. The person from whose possession the documents were seized, Shri.S. Chandrasekhar has also denied that any such transaction had taken place. Other than the seized document at page 1 of A/1/MKP found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any substantive material evidence to establish that the transaction had actually taken place. In this factual matrix, we concur with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer has failed to substantiate with material evidence his stand that the entries at page 1 of seized material A/1/MKP represent undisclosed advances given by the assessee to Shri.S. Chandrasekhar. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made and consequently uphold by ITAT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Tribunal's decision on different inferences drawn by assessing officer.
2. Deletion of additions made by assessing officer for different assessment years based on seized documents.
3. Tribunal's confirmation of deletion of additions made by assessing officer for specific assessment years.

Analysis:
1. The appellants-Revenue raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision on different inferences drawn by the assessing officer based on seized documents. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer failed to bring substantive corroborative material to establish the transactions in question. The Tribunal found no requirement for interference with the decision of the CIT (Appeals) in deleting the additions made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. The Tribunal considered the deletion of additions made by the assessing officer for different assessment years based on seized documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision in deleting the additions, as the assessing officer failed to substantiate his conclusions with material evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09, stating that the assessing officer did not prove the transactions had actually taken place.

3. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of additions made by the assessing officer for specific assessment years. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer did not provide substantive material evidence to establish the transactions mentioned in the seized documents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to delete the additions made by the assessing officer. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, as the Tribunal found no substantial questions of law to consider.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decisions were based on the lack of substantial corroborative material to prove the transactions in question. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decisions to delete the additions made by the assessing officer for different assessment years, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.