9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 101 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained money u/s. 69A - HELD THAT - This statement recorded on decoding has not been part of the assessment proceedings. The Revenue has relied on unverified and coded figures which have been tallied against the un-coded figures without proper corroboration. Any statement recorded of the Directors or the employees relating to the material found in codes has not been brought on record. This raises serious doubts about the reliability of the figures used to make the addition. Since the authenticity of the decoded amounts is questionable any conclusions drawn from them cannot be sustained. Secondly the records indicate that the payment details align with the submissions made by the assessee. It has been established that the amount was paid on 25.11.2011 as per the assessee s records which match the decoded figures quoted in the assessment order. The repeated mention of these figures in the department s findings confirms that there is no discrepancy in the assessee s declaration of the payments. Hence the plea of the assessee stands corroborated and there is no ground for any addition on this account. Thirdly the statement made by Shri Murlidhar Maruthbhai Trivedi the accountant of NODPL has not been made available to the assessee. The assessment order itself acknowledges that this statement is based not only on information regarding the assessee but also on another person s details which are confidential and lie within the Investigation Wing. Since this statement has not been shared with the assessee reliance on it violates the principles of natural justice. Without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the statement or verify its contents the department cannot use it as the basis for making an addition. NODPL has confessed before ITSC that it collected on-money from the sale of land and buildings. However the admission was made in a general context regarding all purchasers of the scheme developed by NODPL. There is no specific mention or direct evidence linking the assessee to this alleged on-money transaction. In the absence of any concrete evidence that the assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions making an addition solely on presumptions is unsustainable. Any such addition must be backed by clear conclusive proof rather than general confessions made by third parties. Finally the purchase deed in question has been executed in the year under consideration hence the on-money payments have already been made in the same year i.e. FY 2014-15 whereas the payments for the purchases have been made on 11.04.2009 of Rs. 15 lakhs 17.11.2009 of Rs. 10 lakhs 27.03.2010 of Rs. 12.50 lakhs 25.11.2011 of Rs. 37.50 lakhs 08.01.2013 of Rs. 8.01 lakhs. Even on this count it cannot be said that the amounts have been paid in the FY 2014-15. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of addition of Rs. 95,56,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to make additions to income if any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing is found and the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain the source thereof. The burden lies on the assessee to explain the nature and source of such money. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the facts surrounding the addition, particularly focusing on the source and authenticity of the alleged undisclosed money. The addition was based on information received from the DCIT and data found during a search under Section 132 of the Act at the premises of a close associate of the promoters of Navratna Organizers and Developers Pvt Ltd (NODPL). The Assessing Officer relied on decoded figures from seized electronic data and statements purportedly linking the assessee to on-money transactions. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the decoding of figures was performed solely by the Department without independent verification or authentication by the search party. The assessee's records showed payments matching the decoded figures, particularly Rs. 37,50,000 paid on 25.11.2011, which was consistent with the entries in the seized data. The statement of the accountant of NODPL, which the Department relied upon, was not provided to the assessee on grounds of confidentiality, violating principles of natural justice. Moreover, NODPL's admission before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) was general and not specifically linked to the assessee. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the Department's reliance on unverified decoded data and confidential statements without providing the assessee an opportunity to verify or rebut the evidence was improper. The matching of payment details in the assessee's books with the Department's figures negated the claim of undisclosed income. The general confession by NODPL did not constitute conclusive proof against the assessee. Hence, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the decoded data and confessions justified the addition. The assessee contended that the additions were based on unverified and inadmissible evidence and that the payments were duly recorded. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing the lack of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses. Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 95,56,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A was deleted on merits due to lack of valid basis and failure of the Revenue to establish the claim beyond doubt. Issue 2: Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 147 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 147 allows reopening of assessment if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. However, reopening must be based on tangible material and not mere change of opinion. Court's interpretation and reasoning: Since the addition under Section 69A was deleted on merits, the Tribunal observed that adjudication on the validity of reopening under Section 147 became academic and did not require examination. Key evidence and findings: The reopening was based on information from a search and data decoded from electronic devices. However, as the addition itself was found to be unjustified, the basis for reopening was undermined. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal refrained from deciding on the reopening issue, holding that it was unnecessary once the addition was deleted on merits. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee challenged the reopening; the Revenue supported it based on information received. The Tribunal's decision to not adjudicate on this issue avoided unnecessary examination. Conclusions: The issue of reopening was left undecided as it became academic after deletion of the addition. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The decoding of figures has been done solely by the department without any independent verification, and the search party has not provided any authenticity for the same... Any statement recorded of the Directors or the employees relating to the material found in codes has not been brought on record. This raises serious doubts about the reliability of the figures used to make the addition." "Since the authenticity of the decoded amounts is questionable, any conclusions drawn from them cannot be sustained." "The statement made by Shri Murlidhar Marutbhai Trivedi, the accountant of NODPL, has not been made available to the assessee... reliance on it violates the principles of natural justice." "In the absence of any concrete evidence that the assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions, making an addition solely on presumptions is unsustainable." "Since the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted on merits, any adjudication on the issue of reopening u/s 148 becomes academic in nature and hence not resorted to." Core principles established include the necessity of authentic and corroborated evidence before making additions under Section 69A, adherence to natural justice by providing the assessee access to evidence relied upon, and the principle that reopening assessments under Section 147 must be supported by valid material, though this issue was not decided due to deletion on merits. Final determinations:
|
