Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. But the issue before us now remains is that whether the seized material A/GAR/05 can be the basis for addition of Rs.2,55,50,000/- As seen from the above seized materials, these are just hand written loose documents. The Department got verified the handwriting of the seized material A/GAR/05 from the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, Govt. of India who had given report that on comparison of the questioned documents and specimen writings of the assessee and his family members the authorship of the questioned document does not tally with the seized material A/GAR/05. But this report of the handwriting experts is not binding on the Department. It is only circumstantial evidence. There is no necessity to the Department to prove the authorship of this document. The other plea of the assessee is that the documents are planted one and it cannot be relied for the purpose of assessment. Though the assessee refused that the documents are not belong to him, the burden is cast upon the assessee to prove conclusively that it does not belong to the assessee. There is no presumption in law that the assessing officer is supposed to discharge tax liability by direct evidence only and thereupon the undisclosed income beyond doubt. The undisclosed income of the assessee is to be computed by the assessing officer on the basis of available record. In many a time, it is very important to have direct evidence or conclusive evidence to prove to determine the undisclosed income. When the assessee gives an evasive reply to the assessing officer, he has no choice but to take estimation of the income. The only thing is it should be reasonable on the basis of material available on record. It should not be based on conjunctures and surmises. As of now material considered by the assessing officer for making the addition is only the seized material marked as A/GAR/05 which is a notebook containing the details of day to day ledger account of various persons to whom the money was advanced. In view of this, we have to consider the seized material A/GAR/05 to see whether it is enough to make addition. In our opinion, this document is only note book/loose slips. We have to look into the statement recorded u/s 132(4) or 132(4A) of the IT Act. The seized material A/GAR/05 found during the course of search and the statement recorded is some piece of evidence to make an addition. The assessing officer has to establish the link between the seized material A/GAR/05 and with other books of accounts of the assessee. It cannot be considered alone as conclusive evidence. The word 'may be presumed' appear in section 132(4A) gives an option to the authorities concerned to presume the things. But it is rebuttable and it does not give a Sri Jagadamba Pearl Dealers & Shri Ravinder Kumar definite authority and conclusive evidence. The assessee has every right to rebut the same by producing the same in support of his claim. The entire case depends on the rule of evidence. The assessee has every right to shift the burden of proof. There is no conclusive presumption. In the present case, the assessee as well as the assessee's son and also assessee's brother Shri S.K. Agarwal categorically stated in every stage of examination and statement recorded u/s 132(1) or132 that the seized material A/GAR/05 is not at all belonged to them. In spite of this the assessing officer proceeded to conclude that these seized materials are conclusively belonged to the assessee. Leave alone the issue relating to authorship of the document seized and the findings of the GEQD, the Department should find out and establish the nexus of these seized materials to the assessee's business while concluding block assessment The assessing officer shall be specific about the nature of nexus of the seized material to the business of the assessee. The allegation of the Department is the seized material that reflected money lending business of the assessee. But they are notable to unearth any background with regard to the money lending business like loan agreement, promissory notes, security details, bank account receipts vouchers or any other corroborative evidence. Without any of these, the department has taken a view that the assessee is carrying on the money lending business. More so, there are so many names of the persons whose addresses are not at all traceable. The department not traced and examined any of them. There is no information from any party that they have taken loan from the assessee. There is no evidence as to whether they repaid the loans towards the principal amount and interest. The department cannot draw inference on the basis of suspicion, conjuncture and surmise. Suspicion, however strong cannot take place of material in support of the findings of the assessing officer. The assessing officer should act in a judicial manner, proceed with judicial spirit and should come to a judicial conclusion. The assessing officer is required to act fairly as a reasonable person and not arbitrarily and capriciously. Assessment made should have adequate material and it should stand on its own legs. The assessing officer without examining any party, who has taken the loan from the assessee, cannot come to the conclusion that the assessee lends money. The basis for addition is only note book/loose slips. These note book/loose slips are unsigned documents. The assessing officer has not established nexus between the note book/loose slips and business of the assessee. There is no narration regarding the address of the parties, the exact amount of loan, period of advance, rate of interest and instalments due. Also there is no evidence for repayment of money towards the loan. There is no valid seized material to come to the conclusion that the assessee has actually made an advance of that amount i.e. Sri Jagadamba Pearl Dealers & Shri Ravinder Kumar Rs.2,55,50,000/- . The note book/loose slips marked A/GAR/05 found during the course of search is a dumb document having no evidentiary value, no addition can be made in the absence of corroborative material. If there is circumstantial evidence in the form of promissory notes, loan agreement and address of the parties or bank entries, the addition is to be made on that basis to the extent of material available. The assessee is not expected to explain the loose papers found as there is no evidence other than note book/loose slips carrying on money lending business of the assessee. The assessing officer has failed to prove the money lending business carried on by the assessee on the basis of seized material A/GAR/05. In our opinion, no addition can be made on the basis of dumb documents/note book/loose slips in the absence of any other material to show that the assessee has carried on money lending business. Noting on the note book/diary/loose sheets are required to be supported/ corroborated by other evidence and are also include the statement of a person who admittedly is a party to the noting and statement from all the persons whose names there on the note book/loose slips and their statements to be recorded and then such statement undoubtedly should be confronted to the assessee and he has to be allowed to cross examine the parties. In the present case, undoubtedly no statement from the parties whose names found in the note book/loose slips has been recorded and assessee such there is no question of cross examination of them and entire addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of uncorroborated writings in the loose papers found during the course of search is not possible. The evidence on record is not sufficient to support the revenue's case that huge money lending business has been carried on by the assessee outside the business of the assessee. This is the block assessment and we are concerned only with the undisclosed income and we have to consider only material and evidence detected as a result of search. It means that if an examination of the material already on record before search or if as a result of some external information or some other sources other than a search, it is found that some income had escaped assessment and then it is open for the Assessing Officer to resort to a regular assessment including reopening of a completed assessment if so advised. But he cannot drag these items into the block assessment proceedings envisaged under Chapter XIV-B of the I.T. Act. In our opinion evidence available with the Assessing Officer as a result of search is to be used for the purpose of determining the undisclosed income of the block period. The evidence, if any, relied on by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of determining the undisclosed income of the block assessment is to be put before the assessee for his comments before completing assessment. More so, if the Assessing Officer wants to rely on the statement of any third party the same is required to be furnished to Sri Jagadamba Pearl Dealers & Shri Ravinder Kumar the assessee and if the assessee wants to cross examine any of the parties whose statement was relied on by the Assessing Officer the same is to be provided to the assessee. In the present case the assessee is having grievance for not providing the opportunity of cross examining the parties whose statements were relied on by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. The circumstances surrounding the case are not strong enough to justify the rejection of assessee's plea asking the opportunity of cross examination. In view of this, we set aside the block assessment order and remand back the matter to the file of the assessing officer. We direct the Assessing Officer to give an opportunity of cross examination of the parties as required by the assessee and thereafter if there is any sufficient evidence other than the unsubstantiated note book/loose slips marked as document A/GAR/5 or if this document (viz., A/GAR/05) substantiated by any other evidence to establish that the assessee is having undisclosed income, then the Assessing Officer shall complete the assessment in accordance with law determining the undisclosed income covering this block period in addition to the other undisclosed income uncontested before us. It is needless to say that the evidence to be considered by the assessing officer for this block assessment is all the evidence on record found as result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence."