2025 (4) TMI 408 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69C - cash transaction made by the assessee relating to transfer and posting - additions made by the revenue in both the assessees arise out of seized materials found from search premises and statement recorded - HELD THAT - As on perusal of the assessment order it is noted that AO did not bring anything corroborative in order to substantiate the statements recorded of Javed Shaikh Shailendra Rathi and Ravindra Wadepalle. Impugned addition is based on the statements alone made in the hands of the two assessees before us. On perusal of the assessment order it is also noted that assessee sought for cross-examination of the witnesses which was rejected by the AO without giving any reasons but by stating that statements recorded explains in detail the modus operandi of transaction related to transfer and posting of PWD engineers. AO came to the conclusion without verifying and making any further efforts and this approach by the AO is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. On this aspect we refer to the decision of Andaman Timber Industries v 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT wherein held that by not providing opportunity of cross-examining the witness whose statements were relied on by the assessing officer amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Once the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross-examine the witness which was denied AO cannot pass any order based on such statements as it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also noted that in the statement recorded of Avish Atal it is recorded that collection of the amount were done by Sonu (Lalit) Mishra and Pavan Mishra along with Avish Atal and others. These persons referred to in the answer given to question 13 were not subjected to examination in order to place any identification regarding the assessees having paid alleged cash. As decided in case of ACIT vs. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar 1973 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that in the absence of corroborative evidence seized material cannot be considered to be primary direct evidence. Decided against revenue.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment was whether the additions made under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, regarding alleged cash payments by the assessees for influencing their transfer and posting within the Public Works Department (PWD) of Maharashtra, were justified. The Tribunal also considered whether the statements and documents seized from third parties could be used to substantiate these additions without corroborative evidence directly linking the assessees to the alleged transactions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The case primarily revolves around section 69C of the Income-tax Act, which pertains to unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal also referenced various judicial precedents, including the principles established in cases like ACIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, which emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence when relying on third-party documents and statements.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, which included statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during a search operation, and documents seized from third parties. It emphasized that these statements and documents, found at the premises of third parties, could not be relied upon to make additions in the assessees' hands without independent evidence corroborating the alleged transactions.

Key evidence and findings:

The evidence against the assessees consisted of statements from employees of the Rucha Group and documents found during searches. The statements outlined a general modus operandi for facilitating transfers and postings within the PWD for cash payments. However, there was no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessees to these transactions.

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the principles from the cited precedents, particularly focusing on the lack of independent evidence linking the assessees to the alleged cash payments. The Tribunal noted that the statements were retracted, and the opportunity for cross-examination was denied, which further weakened the reliability of the evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Revenue argued that the seized documents and statements were sufficient to establish the cash payments. However, the Tribunal found that without corroborative evidence, these documents and statements merely raised suspicion and could not substantiate the additions. The Tribunal also criticized the Assessing Officer's reliance on these statements without allowing cross-examination, which violated principles of natural justice.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the additions made under section 69C were not sustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence directly linking the assessees to the alleged cash payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, does not equate to evidence.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

The Tribunal reiterated the principle that "documents/material found from the premises of a third party or a statement of a third party cannot be relied upon to make additions in the hands of the assessee unless such material or statement is corroborated by independent evidence linking such material to the assessee."

Core principles established:

The judgment reinforced the necessity of corroborative evidence when relying on third-party statements and documents in tax assessments. It highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against an assessee.

Final determinations on each issue:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made under section 69C. The Tribunal found no substantive evidence linking the assessees to the alleged cash payments, and it criticized the procedural shortcomings in the assessment process, particularly the denial of cross-examination rights.