2018 (1) TMI 1100 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A on account of un-explained money - addition was made on the basis of statement of Shri Sunil Shrivastava - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that - We find that no specific error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the DR. The DR could not controvert the finding of the CIT(A) that copy of the statement of Shri Sunil Shrivastava was not supplied to the assessee before placing reliance on the same. We find that the CIT(A) was justified in the above circumstances on holding that the said statement is inadmissible. Inability of the assessee to produce Shri Om Prakash Nema before the AO cannot be read against the assessee under law. No authority has been conferred upon the assessee by exercise of which he can compel Shri Om Prakash Nema to appear before the AO. The power has been conferred upon the AO under the law by exercise of which he could have made the necessary enquiry or investigation. It is also observed that the Revenue could not controvert the finding of the CIT(A) that even during the search no material was found to link up the assessee with the aforesaid deposit of ₹ 9.65 crores in the bank account of M/s Shree Bullion. - Decided against revenue Addition u/s.69C on account of unexplained house hold expenses - CIT-A delted the addition - Held that - DR though supported the order of AO but could not bring any material on record to controvert the finding of the CIT(A) that the AO has estimated the household expenses on the basis that family consists of 28 members, which comprised 18 adult and 10 children. But the CIT(A) held that the family members of brother of Shri Mahendra Lal Saluja resides separately and that family consists of only 10 members and not 28 members as held by the AO.- Decided against revenue Un-explained excess stock of gold and silver - Search & Seizure action in the case of the assessee - Held that - No positive material could be brought on record to controvert the finding of CIT(A) that gold and silver declared under the VDIS Scheme, was kept in the business premises of the assessee and stood duly reflected in the books of account, which on the last page of the ledger of Mahendra Jewellers for the AY 2007-08. Copies of which were produced before the CIT(A) and verified from the relevant books of account. Further, no material was brought on record to controvert the finding of CIT(A) that nothing incriminating was found/recovered either during extensive search operation or thereafter to prove that the aforementioned items, disclosed and stood accepted earlier, were assessable as undisclosed income. In absence of the same, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue Addition u/s 69A on the basis of loose paper found and seized during search - Held that - DR supported the order of AO but could not point out any specific error in the order of the CIT(A). No material was brought on record to controvert the finding of CIT(A) that loose papers, in question, contained scribblings or rough notes and do not mean anything. No material was also brought on record to controvert the finding of CIT(A) that the nature of figures noted on the impugned loose papers seized and that there was no date, name of the party etc., on the said loose papers, and, hence, the same cannot be the basis for making addition but at best could a suspicion. No corroborative material was brought on record by the revenue to show that the figures mentioned in the impugned loose sheets were, in fact, the undisclosed income of the assessee.- Decided against revenue

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of ?9.65 Crores made under Section 69A on account of unexplained money.
2. Deletion of addition of ?1,91,133/- and ?2,12,566/- made under Section 69C on account of unexplained household expenses.
3. Deletion of addition of ?90,92,969/- on account of unexplained excess stock of gold and silver.
4. Deletion of addition of ?47,340/- and ?6,10,223/- made under Section 69A on the basis of loose paper found and seized.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of ?9.65 Crores under Section 69A:

The Revenue challenged the deletion of ?9.65 Crores added by the AO under Section 69A for unexplained money. The AO based the addition on information from the Punjab National Bank, which indicated cash deposits by Mahendra Jewellers. The statements of bank officials were used to support the addition. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the bank account belonged to Shree Shyam Bullion, not the assessee. The assessee provided confirmation from Shri Om Prakash Nema, proprietor of Shree Shyam Bullion, which was not refuted by the AO. The CIT(A) emphasized that statements recorded behind the back of the assessee without cross-examination have no evidentiary value. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of direct evidence linking the assessee to the deposits and the AO’s failure to produce corroborative evidence during the search.

2. Deletion of Addition of ?1,91,133/- and ?2,12,566/- under Section 69C:

The AO added ?1,91,133/- for AY 2006-07 and ?2,12,566/- for AY 2007-08 under Section 69C, citing unexplained household expenses. The AO based the addition on the estimated household expenses for a family of 28 members. The CIT(A) found that the family consisted of only 10 members and adjusted the addition accordingly. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of evidence to support the AO's estimation and the incorrect assumption about the family size.

3. Deletion of Addition of ?90,92,969/- on Account of Unexplained Excess Stock of Gold and Silver:

The AO added ?90,92,969/- for unexplained excess stock of gold and silver found during the search. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the excess stock was covered by the VDIS declarations made by the assessee and duly reflected in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of incriminating evidence found during the search and the AO's failure to substantiate the addition with corroborative evidence.

4. Deletion of Addition of ?47,340/- and ?6,10,223/- under Section 69A:

The AO added ?47,340/- and ?6,10,223/- under Section 69A based on loose papers found during the search, which indicated unrecorded transactions. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the loose papers contained only rough jottings and scribblings, which did not represent actual transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that such documents have no evidentiary value without corroborative evidence and cannot be the basis for additions under deeming provisions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletions of the additions made by the AO under Sections 69A and 69C. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and proper cross-examination in making additions based on statements and documents found during searches.

← Previous Next →