Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was correct under the law to make additions of Rs. 13,63,080/- in the hands of the appellant on the basis of unsigned, uncorroborated and dumped documents found from the premises of M/s Bright Professionals Pvt. Ltd. during the course of search.

2. Whether the Assessing Officer was correct under the law to make additions of Rs. 13,63,080/- in the hands of the appellant, though the directors denied of having any proper records about the receipts and payments, and other records for any of their expenditure incurred, though on the other hand the appellant has filed his Affidavit, categorically decline to have the receipt of Rs.

08.01.2016 uls 131 of the Act.

c. That in their cross-examination on 08.01.2016, both the directors have admitted that there is no any agreement entered and executed between any of the faculty member and the management of their Institute. All the fee receipts and payments are verbal and there is no record either maintained or available with us for the sharing of fee between the faculty members. They all are being paid in cash for which we are not maintaining any proper records with us. No TDS is deducted, no regular books of accounts were maintained reflecting therein the said receipts / payments thereof. 7.2 We further note that the Assessing Officer without taking into consideration all the information furnished, documents produced and available with him, make the addition of Rs. 13,63,080/- in the hands of the assessee while finalizing the assessment proceedings, without appreciating the facts, that on the basis of dump, uncorroborated and unsigned documents, without having any nexus to the payment of Rs. 13,63,080/- alleged to be paid to the assessee, the addition made only on the basis of presumption and guesswork of the Assessing Officer was not tenable, even the Directors of the company could also further not been able to prove the authenticity and validity of the document wherein reflecting the amount if any be paid to the appellant of Rs. 13,63,080/- during the Financial Year 2007-08 in their Statements recorded u/s 132 and 131 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and in their cross-examination also, therefore, the additions made are not liable to the sustained. My view is fully supported by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Samta Khinda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-22 passed in ITA Nos. 336/Del/2012 & 5515/Del/2013 (AY 2009-10 dated 2911.2016, wherein it has been held that without any corroborating evidence /material, any of the figures mentioned /appearing on the unsigned loose papers seized / collected by the Department during the course of search /survey, having no evidentially value under the provisions of law even u/s. 292C of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the aforesaid case the Tribunal has held as under:-

4. The guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to in para 2 above, with regard to recording of satisfaction note, may be brought to the notice of all for strict compliance. It is further clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and the "other person" is one and the same, then also he is required to record his satisfaction as has been held by the Courts.

5. In view of the above, filing of appeals on the issue of recording of satisfaction note should also be decided in the light of the above judgment. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that pending litigation with regard to recording of satisfaction note under section 158BD/153C should be withdrawn/not pressed if it does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court. 9.1 The above Circular states that even if the AO of the search person is one and the same then he should also record the satisfaction. Leaving aside the matter on satisfaction in this case the assessment has also been made disregarding the provisions of the search as provided under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. Once again at the cost of repetition the date of search is 6.11.2008 and the assessment year involves before us is assessment year 2009-10 and further addition has been made on the basis of the document impounded during the course of search at the residence of the assessee. The AO has proceeded to make an assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the Appellant succeeds on the issue of satisfaction in view of the CBDT's Circular stated above and also on the merit as the sole addition has been based on the document in which one transaction is allegedly sold without mentioning the date and further no corroborative evidence of any investment made by the assessee was found. Further the document is also unsigned and undated, the addition made in the hands of the assessee of Rs. 96 lacs cannot be sustained. In view of this, we reverse the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) by confirming the addition of Rs. 96 crores in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of section 292C of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is also surprising to note that in the present case the penalty has been initiated under the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act, this relates to the search assessment, but the AO has made assessment under the regular provisions of the I.T. Act.