2020 (3) TMI 129 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained income - declaration made by another party before the Settlement Commission - HELD THAT - Assessee need not to be asked to explain the entries or notings in the books of a third party. In the absence of any other independent material to corroborate the statement of Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala made before the Settlement Commission, it would not be prudent to take the view that there was a transaction between the assessee and Shri Bhikhubhai Padsala in cash with regard to the purchase of certain parcels of land. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vineeta Gupta 2014 (5) TMI 543 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein, the view taken is that the declaration made by another party before the Settlement Commission is not binding upon the assessee, therefore, no additions can be made in absence of any independent material. Question of law as proposed by the Revenue cannot be termed as a substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of tax law regarding unexplained income addition based on cash transactions in land purchase.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard two tax appeals analogously and delivered a common judgment. The lead appeal, Tax Appeal No.838 of 2019, involved a dispute under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case originated from a search operation related to cash payments for land purchases. The Assessing Officer reopened the case based on information from a Settlement Commission statement and added unexplained income to the assessee's total income. The CIT(A) and the Appellate Tribunal subsequently ruled in favor of the assessee, leading the Revenue to appeal to the High Court.

The Revenue raised a question of law regarding the deletion of additions made for unexplained income without considering the case comprehensively. The Assessing Officer's findings highlighted substantial cash transactions for land purchase, leading to the addition of unexplained income. However, the CIT(A) disagreed with these findings. The CIT(A) pointed out that the documents supporting the additions were found at a third party's premises, not the appellant's. Moreover, the documents were not in the appellant's handwriting, lacked the appellant's signature, and did not mention the appellant's name. The absence of independent verification and the lack of a registered sale deed raised doubts about the transaction's authenticity.

The High Court noted that the Revenue's case heavily relied on a statement made before the Settlement Commission by a third party. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal emphasized that without independent corroborative evidence, such statements were insufficient to establish a transaction between the parties. Citing legal precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the High Court concluded that the Revenue's case lacked substantial evidence to support the addition of unexplained income. The High Court also referred to a Delhi High Court decision stating that statements made before the Settlement Commission by third parties are not binding on the assessee without independent verification.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The court found no substantial question of law in the Revenue's arguments, given the lack of independent evidence supporting the addition of unexplained income.