Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

194. In view of the above, in our opinion, it cannot be concluded as payments by the assessee towards seat conversion.

195. The seized material A/DUU/11 is placed at pages 1555 to 1635 of PB. According to the ld. DR, it shows unaccounted utilisation of capitation fees for the benefit of trustees. These are unsigned documents and not supported by any corroborative material. Further the beneficiaries are not examined or cross-examined. At this point, it is appropriate to rely on the judgment of the Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT v. Layers Exports P. Ltd [2017] 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mumbai), wherein it was held that no addition could be simply made on the basis of uncorroborated noting in the ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 loose papers found during the search because addition on account of alleged receipt made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting and scribbling on loose sheets made by some person have no evidentiary value and is unsustainable and bad in law.

(b) In course of search and post-search investigation, in the statements recorded under s. 132(4)/131, chairman of the assessee trust, Sri Srinivasa Rao expressed his inability to explain the circumstances in which those sheets were found from the premises of the assessee-society. (c) Despite repeated questioning on various occasions, the said Srinivasa Rao denied that the assessee-society has collected capitation fee from any student. (d) The computer printout was not recovered/retrieved from any of the computers maintained in the society's office at the time of search, although the same were verified and that too with the recovery tool which is a usual method adopted by the Department at the time of search. (e) In the course of assessment proceedings, the ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 seized hard disks were operated in the office of the AO with the help of IBM official but there was no impression in the hard disk that the same was typed and prepared in any of the computers belonging to the society. No data conforming to the notings in the excel sheets could be found from the seized computer hard disks. He submitted that the only purpose of scanning the seized hard disk was intended for recovery of the excel sheets so as to corroborate the same, as the assessee has denied to have generated the same. Since it resulted in a futile exercise, it was clearly established that the excel sheets were not prepared by the assessee-society. The assessment order passed by the AO makes no mention of any such recovery. (f) The author of the excel sheets could not be identified. In terms of s. 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, computerised information is within the realm of hearsay evidence and therefore, not relevant at all by itself. In such cases either authority who has fed the information must be identified or he must appear personally and testify before the Court about the source of information. Hence, in the absence of any such corroboration, the evidence remained a hearsay evidence, carrying no evidentiary value, in the absence of any corroboration. (g) At the time of seizure, the excel sheets were not authenticated either by the assessee or by the witnesses or by an authorized officer. This is an unsigned document and as such it loses its evidentiary value for want ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 of authentication. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sanskruti Township v. Department of IT [IT Appeal No. 1885 (Ahd.) of 2006, dated 23-9-2011] and Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dy. CIT v. C. Krishna Yadav [2011] 12 taxmann.com 4/46 SOT 250 (Hyd.)(URO). (h) There is evidence in the seized record that the Department has typed some information by making use of assessee's computer and made part of the Panchnama. This fact was pointed out by the chairman of the assessee, Sri B. Srinivasa Rao in the course of his statement recorded on 17th Dec, 2009. This act on the part of the search party raises an eyebrow. (i) The Dy. Director of IT in course of post-search investigation made extensive enquiries to corroborate the notings in the excel sheets. One of the steps taken by him was that he summoned all the parents of the students under s. 131 to take evidence. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessee made requests to supply the copies of these statements. Repeated requests made by the assessee fell in deaf ears and so far these statements have not been provided. On being directed by the AO in course of assessment proceeding, the assessee contacted the office of Director General of IT and reminded on a number of occasions but no information was supplied, despite the fact that this fact was also brought to the notice of Director General of IT. As a ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 principle, neither the assessee can suppress the best evidence in his possession nor the Department. It is settled principle that whenever the assessee desires, he can have access to all information, whether favourable or adverse to him as laid down in Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri [1954] 26 ITR 1 (SC), SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 22 SOT 7 (Delhi)(URO), CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. [1976] 105 ITR 212 (SC). In this case the assessee has every reason to believe that the evidences tendered by the parents, who were Departmental witnesses, were all favourable to assessee and therefore, the Department was apprehensive of providing these statements as the same would go against the Department. The conduct of the Department is not fair as the notings in the Excel sheets formed the basis of addition and subsequent cancellation. Assessee is enclosing herewith some of the summons issued to the parents who appeared to give testimony. (j) Even the AO failed to summon these witnesses in course of assessment proceedings for corroboration when the assessee was consistently denying collection of capitation fees and based his entire conclusion on the report of the Dy. Director of IT which was based on suspicion. This shows total non-application of mind by the adjudicating officer when the informations supplied to him were disputed and not-corroborated by the Dy. Director of IT. His attempt to verify the facts from two witnesses namely ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 Sri Tirupathi Reddy and Madhav Reddy could not yield any further evidence. (k) It was brought to the notice of authorities that notings in the loose sheet remained uncorroborated till end as the same was not a speaking document and no supporting evidence by way of money receipt and other evidences was found. It was pointed out that the same was a dumb document and therefore not to form the basis of cancellation of registration under s. 12AA. With regard to evidentiary value of notings in the loose sheet, the appellant relies on the following decisions : (a) C. Krishna Yadav (supra); (b) Asstt. CIT v. Satyapal Wassan [2007] 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jab.) ; (c) Asstt. CIT v. Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh [2010] 3 ITR (Trib) 533 (Pat.) ; (d) CIT v. Khazan Singh & Bros. [2008] 304 ITR 243/[2007] 164 Taxman 30 (Punj. & Har.) ; (e) CIT v. Girish Chaudhary [2008] 296 ITR 619/[2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Delhi) ; (f) Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 99 ITD 177 (Delhi) ; (g) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj.). (l) As regards the presumption under s. 132(4A), it was submitted that a loose sheet is not a book/document so as to raise the presumption. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410. Further the presumption in this section is not mandatory. This can supplement but cannot supplant evidence. Nothing was found by the ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 Department to support their suspicion. (m) Therefore, the Excel sheets which are not speaking either by itself or in the company of others, or corroborated by enquiry, cannot be the basis of any inference that capitation fees were collected and not entered in the accounts to cancel registration.

255. Apart from the above seized material, the AO has relied upon the statement under section 132(4) of Sri. Goli V. Srinivas recorded on 06.08.2015.

256. In the submissions made in respect of ground number 7. the appellant has established that the seized material is not incriminating in nature. Therefore, it is not conclusive proof for receipt of capitation fee. The appellant reiterates those submissions. Under such circumstances, the AO erred in relying on such material to deny exemption under section ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 145 of 183 11. The AO has concluded that the appellant has received capitation fee merely on the basis of statements and unsigned documents which cannot be relied on as evidence. As far as the statements of Mr. Srinivas and Mr. Nagaraj are concerned, the appellant reiterates that they have not acted at the behest of the trust.