2022 (2) TMI 1059 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investment u/s.69 - Addition based on seized document - HELD THAT - As seized document i.e. ledger account of Shri Manish Pinjani appearing in the books of account of M/s. R.S. Automobiles, Raipur, proprietary concern of the assessee evidencing receipt/repayment of loan of ₹ 1 lacs by Shri Manish Pinjani to the assessee was also seized in the course of the aforesaid search proceedings and form part of the seized document. Viz. LPS-13 . The said fact on a standalone basis can in no way establish to the hilt a nexus of the assessee with the contents of the incriminating document evidencing payment of ₹ 8,86,000/- towards purchase of the aforesaid property in question i.e. Plot No.47. We are of a strong conviction that as no nexus between the contents of the aforesaid incriminating document evidencing payment of ₹ 8,86,000/- has been established with the assessee before us, therefore, we are of the considered view that the addition of the same could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations vacate the addition made by the AO during the year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and factual correctness of the CIT(A)'s order.
2. Sustaining addition of ?1,40,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. General grounds for relief/deduction and procedural grounds for amending or adding grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Factual Correctness of the CIT(A)'s Order:
The assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds that it was "bad in law as well as on facts." The CIT(A) had upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on seized documents during a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) correctly interpreted the evidence and legal provisions.

2. Sustaining Addition of ?1,40,000/- as Unexplained Investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolved around the addition of ?1,40,000/- as unexplained investment for the assessment year 2010-11. The AO had made this addition based on incriminating documents seized during a search operation. These documents included an agreement between Shri Manish Pinjani and M. Ahuja Project India Pvt. Ltd., and ledger accounts showing payments made over the years.

The AO concluded that the payments aggregating to ?8,86,000/- made over the financial years 2009-10 to 2011-12 were unexplained investments by the assessee. The assessee contested this, arguing that the documents did not pertain to him and that he had no connection with the transactions except for a loan of ?1 lakh given to Shri Raju Pinjani.

The Tribunal observed that the seized documents did not directly implicate the assessee. The documents were found at the business premises of M/s. R.S. Fincap, a partnership concern involving the assessee and Shri Sunil Talariya. The Tribunal noted that the presumption under Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Act, which assumes the authenticity of documents found during a search, is rebuttable. The Tribunal found no direct nexus between the assessee and the payments listed in the incriminating documents.

The Tribunal concluded that the AO had not established a clear link between the assessee and the unexplained investments. Therefore, the addition of ?1,40,000/- was vacated.

3. General Grounds for Relief/Deduction and Procedural Grounds for Amending or Adding Grounds:
The Tribunal dismissed the general grounds (Ground Nos. 1, 3, and 4) as they were not pressed by the assessee during the hearing. These grounds were procedural and did not require detailed examination.

Judgment for Assessment Year 2011-12:
For the assessment year 2011-12, the facts and issues were identical to those for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning and vacated the additions made by the AO for this year as well.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, vacating the additions made by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of direct evidence linking the assessee to the unexplained investments and the rebuttable nature of the presumption under Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Act. The judgment was pronounced on February 21, 2022.

← Previous Next →