2017 (1) TMI 1157 - HC - Income Tax

Unaccounted money - Held that - The solitary basis for addition of over ₹ 1.67 crores was the chart recovered from the premises of Mr. B. K. Dhingra. Whatever be the facial indications, one thing is apparent i.e. that it revealed some amounts were paid by the third parties. The details of cheques and other particulars were reflected in the charts. As correctly observed by the ITAT, the evidentiary value of these charts, as far as the assessee was concerned, could not be conclusive given the fact that it was neither the searched party nor was a party receiving notice under Section 153C of the Act. Under the circumstances, the AO could have added these amounts only if he had made a searching enquiry into all the circumstances. That the amounts were reflected by way of cheques and these cheques were entered in the charts is not in dispute. If such is the case, whether those amounts were reflected in the assessee s Bank accounts or not and were encashed by some other entity was a matter of appropriate enquiries. The AO s failure to do so could not have resulted in the assessee being taxed for those amounts. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of concurrent factual findings by the ITAT.
2. Validity of addition of undisclosed amounts in the assessment.
3. Reliance on evidentiary value of documents seized during search and seizure proceedings.
4. Application of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
5. Final fact-finding authority of the ITAT.

Analysis:

1. The High Court deliberated on the interpretation of the concurrent factual findings by the ITAT. It was emphasized that the ITAT serves as the final fact-finding authority unless its appreciation of circumstances is manifestly perverse or contrary to the record. The Court expressed reluctance to interfere with the ITAT's orders unless necessary.

2. The validity of the addition of undisclosed amounts in the assessment was scrutinized. The Revenue contended that the amounts were bogus and not genuine. However, the Court noted that the sole basis for the addition of over &8377; 1.67 crores was a chart recovered from a third party's premises. The Court highlighted that the evidentiary value of the chart, concerning the assessee, was inconclusive as the assessee was neither the searched party nor received notice under Section 153C of the Act.

3. The Court addressed the reliance on the evidentiary value of documents seized during search and seizure proceedings. It was noted that the details of cheques and other particulars in the chart were crucial. The Court agreed with the ITAT's observation that the AO should have conducted a thorough enquiry into all circumstances before adding the amounts. The failure to verify if the amounts reflected in the chart were encashed by the assessee resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The application of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act was discussed. The Court highlighted that the amounts reflected in the chart by way of cheques should have been investigated to determine if they were reflected in the assessee's bank accounts and encashed by the assessee. The AO's failure to conduct such inquiries led to the conclusion that the assessee should not be taxed for those amounts.

5. Lastly, the Court reiterated the final fact-finding authority of the ITAT. It emphasized that the ITAT's decision should not be interfered with unless it is manifestly perverse or contrary to the record. The Court, after considering all circumstances, concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.