2016 (7) TMI 569 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - cash payment towards purchase of shop, over and above the price settled - whether the addition made on the basis of paper seized in the case of search on the Siddhi Group and not on the assessee and also on the basis of statement made by Shri Kantilal M Patel, the key person of Siddhi Group, is justifiable and in accordance with law - Held that - In the absence of any incriminating documentary material/ evidence found against the assessee to prove that the alleged investment of ₹ 37 lakhs had been made by the assessee as on money, over and above, credited amount for purchase of the shop in question, find that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is unsupported and unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?37,00,000 under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2009-10 based on a seized paper indicating undisclosed cash payment for property acquisition.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the addition of ?37,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a seized paper during a search and seizure action on the Siddhi Group. The paper suggested that the appellant made a cash payment over and above the registered amount for the purchase of a property. The key person of the Siddhi Group confirmed this fact in his statement. The appellant denied making any such cash payment. The AO relied on the seized paper and lack of rebuttal from the appellant to make the addition. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, emphasizing the direct evidence from the seized paper and the appellant's failure to provide corroborative evidence to disprove the statement. The appellant cited various judicial pronouncements to support their case, but the authorities found the seized paper as direct evidence of undisclosed income. The ld. CIT(A) held that the burden was on the appellant to disprove the contents of the statement, which was not done effectively, leading to the confirmation of the addition.

2. Burden of proof on the appellant to provide evidence against the seized paper and statement of a third party.

In the absence of concrete evidence provided by the appellant to counter the seized paper and the statement of the Siddhi Group's key person, the burden of proof shifted to the appellant. The appellant relied on case laws to argue against the addition, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking them to the alleged cash payment. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the appellant's failure to provide such evidence to refute the seized paper's contents. The authorities emphasized that the appellant's denial alone was insufficient to disprove the cash payment, especially when direct evidence existed. The Tribunal found the addition unsupported and unsustainable in law due to the lack of incriminating documentary material against the appellant regarding the alleged cash payment, ultimately leading to the deletion of the addition.

3. Comparison with similar cases where additions were deleted due to lack of concrete evidence.

The Tribunal compared the present case with similar cases where additions were deleted due to insufficient evidence linking the assessee to the alleged undisclosed income. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support additions under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the seized paper and the statement of a third party, without additional corroborative evidence against the appellant, were inadequate to justify the addition of ?37,00,000. Drawing parallels with previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the addition lacked legal support and was therefore deleted, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the burden of proof on the appellant, the significance of corroborative evidence, and the comparison with relevant case laws to determine the legality of the addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The judgment ultimately favored the appellant, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition.