2025 (5) TMI 1319 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted investments u/s. 69 - AO concluded that the fixed deposits were all made by the Directors of the Seyad group and that the deposits appearing in the name of beedi rollers were nothing but unaccounted money of the directors - HELD THAT - We find that the ld.CIT(A) had merely adopted the order passed by the ITSC in the case of the assessee s group with respect to the subject issue applying the same in respect of the assesses before him without independent application of mind and appreciating the fact that the said ITSC order was passed in case of other three directors and that to in the back of assessee s. Therefore the reliance placed solely on the order of ITSC by the CIT(A) in respect of the additions made in the case of present assessee s will tantamount to grave miscarriage of justice. Any decree passed in the case of two contesting parties which will be binding on parties inter vivos cannot bind or executable against the third party / unrelated party. We also find that the AO had solely relied on the statement of Shri P.K.Meeran Mohideen without seeking explanation from the directors of M/s.Seyad Cotton Mills Ltd. during search or post-search proceedings. As undisputed fact that no incriminating evidence found to show that the funds from the directors were deposited in the name of beedi rollers except relying on assumptions and statement of Shri.P.K.Meeran Mohideen who had also admitted that deposits were also made by beedi rollers. We find that Shri.P.K.Meeran Mohideen has clearly bifurcated the amount of deposits pertaining to the assesses and their family members and the amount pertaining to beedi rollers vide response to question no.3 of his sworn statement dated 01.08.2017. We also find that the AO had just concluded that investments were made by the assessee s merely on basis of genuine/bonafide clerical and inadvertent errors in the deposit forms of beedi rollers which is inevitable in manual filing of forms by stating that no specific date was mentioned in the KYC form for receipt of deposits and no entry was made in the columns FOR OFFICE USE . It is trite law that who alleges the factum of any act has onus to prove. In this case AO has miserably failed to show that the aforesaid deposits were made by the assessee s from their coffers instead of the beedi rollers hands. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO in the assessment along with proceedings enhancing the additions made by the AO in the assessment. Hence we are setting aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the additions made u/s. 69 of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal in these consolidated appeals relate primarily to the additions made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act concerning alleged unaccounted investments in fixed deposits made in the name of beedi rollers in M/s. Seyad Cotton Mills Limited (SCML) during the assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The issues can be summarized as follows:

• Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed/enhanced by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] towards deposits in SCML as 'unaccounted investments' under Section 69 are justified in law and on facts.
• Whether the CIT(A) erred in adopting the order passed by the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) in respect of three directors of SCML and applying the same to the present appellants without independent adjudication.
• Whether the AO's reliance on the statement of Shri P.K. Meeran Mohideen, DGM (Accounts) of SCML, without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine or confront the witness, violates principles of natural justice and renders the additions unsustainable.
• Whether the additions should be restricted only to the fresh investments made out of undisclosed income during the relevant years, as opposed to taxing the entire deposits.
• Whether the additions, if any, should have been made in the hands of SCML rather than the individual directors/assessee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Legitimacy of Additions Under Section 69 of the Act Relating to Deposits in SCML

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act allows the AO to treat any sum found to be invested in any asset or deposited in any bank or financial institution as income of the assessee if the source of such investment or deposit is unexplained. The burden lies on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of the investment.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made additions based on the fixed deposit ledger found during post-search operations, which showed deposits of Rs. 4.42 crores in the name of beedi rollers but concluded these were unaccounted money of the directors, relying heavily on the sworn statement of the company's DGM (Accounts), Shri P.K. Meeran Mohideen. The AO rejected the assessee's denial of any such investments in the name of beedi rollers and made additions proportionate to the directors' shareholding.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO's primary evidence was the statement of Shri P.K. Meeran Mohideen and third-party letters. However, the statement itself bifurcated deposits belonging to the directors and those of beedi rollers, with the DGM admitting that a substantial part of the deposits were indeed from beedi rollers. No incriminating evidence directly linked the deposits to the assessee's undisclosed income.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to seek explanations from the directors during search or post-search proceedings and relied on assumptions and the statement of the DGM alone. The AO also did not provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the third-party statements relied upon, violating principles of natural justice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the deposits were genuine and that the AO's reliance on the DGM's statement without cross-examination was unjust. The AO contended that the deposits were unaccounted investments. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing the lack of substantive evidence and procedural lapses.

Conclusion: The additions under Section 69 were not sustainable as the AO failed to discharge the burden of proving the deposits were unaccounted investments of the assessee.

2. Reliance on ITSC Order and Its Application to Present Assessees

Legal Framework and Precedents: The ITSC has jurisdiction to settle cases of undisclosed income and make additions accordingly under Section 245D(4). However, its orders are binding only on the parties before it and cannot be indiscriminately applied to others.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The ITSC had made additions of Rs. 51,57,500 each in the hands of three directors of SCML. The CIT(A) adopted this order and applied the same additions to the present appellants, who were not parties to the ITSC proceedings.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to independently adjudicate the issue on merits and merely followed the ITSC order applicable to other directors. The Tribunal emphasized that a decree or order binding parties inter vivos cannot bind third parties not before the authority.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that reliance solely on the ITSC order without independent examination amounted to a grave miscarriage of justice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have independently examined the facts and evidence in their case. The revenue relied on the ITSC order and CIT(A)'s confirmation.

Conclusion: The CIT(A)'s adoption of the ITSC order without independent application of mind was erroneous.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in Relying on Third-Party Statements

Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given a fair opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon against it. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that denial of such opportunity vitiates the assessment proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO relied on statements of Shri P.K. Meeran Mohideen and third-party letters without allowing the assessee to cross-examine or challenge their veracity. The Tribunal cited authoritative rulings holding that orders based on untested statements are not sustainable.

Key Evidence and Findings: The sworn statement of the DGM did not conclusively implicate the assessee, and the AO's reliance on third-party letters without cross-examination was a procedural violation.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that this violation went to the root of the matter and rendered the additions unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee highlighted these procedural lapses; the revenue did not adequately address the natural justice concerns.

Conclusion: The additions based on such evidence were liable to be quashed.

4. Restriction of Additions to Fresh Investments Out of Undisclosed Income

Legal Framework and Precedents: It is established that only fresh investments made out of undisclosed income during the relevant assessment years are liable to be added under Section 69, and not the entire deposits including opening balances or amounts refunded.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The assessee contended that only the incremental fresh investments should be taxed, supported by detailed reconciliations showing opening balances, investments made, refunds, and closing balances.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the detailed computations submitted by the assessee showing that a significant portion of deposits were opening balances or refunds and should not be treated as fresh undisclosed income.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that the AO and CIT(A) did not sufficiently consider these reconciliations and restricted their additions to the entire deposits.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's plea for restricting additions was not accepted by the lower authorities, but the Tribunal found merit in the contention.

Conclusion: Additions, if any, should be limited to fresh investments made out of undisclosed income during the relevant years.

5. Whether Additions Should Have Been Made in the Hands of SCML Instead of Individual Directors

Legal Framework and Precedents: Where undisclosed investments or deposits are made in the name of a company, the question arises whether the additions should be made in the hands of the company or the individual directors/shareholders.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions in the hands of the individual directors without making corresponding additions in the hands of SCML, which had completed assessments without any such additions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessment orders of SCML for relevant years were completed without any adverse findings regarding deposits.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that in the absence of substantive evidence linking the deposits to undisclosed income of individual directors, additions should not have been made in their hands.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued for deletion or restriction of additions; the revenue maintained the additions were justified.

Conclusion: The additions in the hands of individual directors were not sustainable without corresponding findings against SCML.

Significant Holdings

"Any decree passed in the case of two contesting parties which will be binding on parties inter vivos, cannot bind or executable against the third party / unrelated party."

"Once the assessee has disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law."

"The powers of rectification do not extend to re-examination of the core decision taken on merits in the earlier order. The Interim Board for Settlement (IBS) cannot recall or revisit its own decision on merit and change its considered opinion within the meaning of provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961."

"Denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon'ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed by the AO not sustainable."

"It is trite law that who alleges the factum of any act has onus to prove. In this case AO has miserably failed to show that the aforesaid deposits were made by the assessee's from their coffers instead of the beedi rollers hands."

Core Principles Established

• Orders or additions based on statements of third parties without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine violate principles of natural justice and are unsustainable.
• ITSC orders are binding only on parties before it and cannot be applied indiscriminately to others not party to the proceedings.
• Additions under Section 69 should be based on fresh investments made out of undisclosed income during the relevant years, not on entire deposits including opening balances or refunds.
• The burden of proof lies on the revenue to establish that deposits are undisclosed investments of the assessee.
• Additions should be made in the correct hands, and in the absence of evidence linking deposits to individual directors, additions should not be made against them when the company's assessment is clean.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

• The additions made by the AO under Section 69 towards deposits in the name of beedi rollers were not substantiated by credible evidence and were based on assumptions and untested statements.
• The CIT(A) erred in mechanically adopting the ITSC order applicable to other directors and applying it to the present appellants without independent adjudication.
• The AO's failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon violated natural justice, rendering the additions unsustainable.
• The additions, if any, should have been restricted to fresh investments made out of undisclosed income during the relevant years, not the entire deposits.
• Additions should not have been made in the hands of individual directors without corresponding findings against SCML.
• Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and deleted the additions made under Section 69 of the Act in all the consolidated appeals.