Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. While deciding the various grounds taken in the appeal, we have taken into consideration, as we are bound to, the orders of the IT authorities, the facts marshalled therein, the rival contentions made elaborately before us, the contents of the paper books filed both by the assessee and the Department and the authorities and precedents to which our attention was drawn.

3. The first ground, which is in two parts, is directed against the addition of Rs. 23,33,000 made on account of receipts from match-fixing. The AO adverted to the reference made by the Ministry of Culture, Youth Affairs and Sports to the CBI to conduct enquiries into the allegations of match-fixing going on regarding test and one-day matches and the role played by cricketers, punters, bookmakers (bookies) and related persons. The CBI prepared a report on 31st Oct., 2000, which was made public the very next day, in which the allegations were confirmed. Prominent amongst the various names mentioned in the report was the name of one M.K. Gupta, bookie, popularly known as "MK" in cricketing circles. The CBI recorded a statement from MK on 28th June, 2000. The statement of the present assessee was also recorded by the CBI on 28th July, 2000. Both these statements were annexed to the Madhavan Commission's report. On the basis of these reports and statements, the AO concluded that the involvement of the assessee in cricket match-fixing dealings was conclusively proved. He has made elaborate references to these reports and the statement made by the assessee before the CBI in paras 2.3 and 2.4 of the block assessment order and for the sake of brevity they are not reproduced here. He has also referred, in fairness to the assessee, to the fact that by letter dt. 8th Aug., 2001, the assessee has denied all such receipts contending that there is no evidence in support thereof. He has rejected the contention, referring specifically to the fact that Ajay Gupta, one of the bookies involved, had sponsored the visits of the assessee to the UK and US which "clearly establishes beyond doubt his close nexus with the bookies" and that a bill of Muskan Travels, seized during the search of the assessee's residence, and the subsequent enquiries made by him conclusively proved that the assessee and his family undertook the trip in May-June, 1999, and that it was sponsored by Ajay Gupta. The AO ultimately held that preponderance of probability is sufficient to establish a finding and strict proof, as required in criminal proceedings, is not required in Revenue proceedings and on this basis held that the amount of Rs. 23,33,000 was to be added as the undisclosed income of the assessee. The details of the amount are given in para 2.4 of the assessment order. In all, 7 amounts are mentioned. They are as under:

5. The assessee is in further appeal. The main contention advanced on his behalf is that no evidence has been found relating to match-fixing allegations against the assessee "as a result of the search" as required by Section 158BC, that the addition is based on the statement of the assessee before CBI which is uncorroborated, that the report of the Madhavan Commission which is only an opinion given by an individual on the basis of some preliminary investigations which can at best be only a starting point for further probe, that the statement made by the assessee before the AO on 12th Sept., 2000, only shows that the assessee may be having links with Ajay Gupta but cannot constitute evidence on the basis of which it can be concluded that the assessee was being remunerated for alleged match-fixing activity, that even the statement dt. 6th Nov., 2000, was made before the Investigation Wing of the Department and was not corroborated and that the addition, in these circumstances, was based merely on suspicion which cannot be permitted. It was submitted that the assessee has not admitted any receipt of money for match-fixing. The material referred to by the AO in support of the addition cannot form the basis of a block assessment as it has not been found during the search conducted under Section 132. Our attention was invited to the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT (2004) 84 TTJ (Del) 625, in which an addition for match-fixing receipts made on the identical materials (CBI report, Madhavan Commission report, statement of the assessee, Manoj Prabhakar, etc.) was cancelled on the ground that these were not materials gathered during the search or cannot constitute evidence found as a result of the search and that the assessee's statement cannot also be considered to be evidence found during the search. Considerable emphasis was laid on the principle of judicial discipline and consistency and it was submitted that the facts being identical, there would be no justification to take a different view in the present case, the facts and evidence/material being identical.

6. On the other hand, the learned CIT Departmental Representative Mr. B.N. Verma, stoutly defended the assessment and filed a paper book in support of his submissions. He filed a copy of the statement of MK made before the CBI and submitted that the statement contained enough evidence to come to the conclusion that the assessee received monies for match-fixing. He contended that the report of the CBI is a public document on which the AO can rightly place reliance in support of the addition. He pointed out that the assessee was confronted with the contents of the report of the CBI on 6th Nov., 2000, when a statement was recorded from him and thus the assessee has been given an opportunity of knowing and explaining the evidence against him in deference to the rules of natural justice. As regards the assessee's links with Ajay Gupta, Mr. Verma pointed out that the bill of Muskan Travels, seized during the search, established the links and, therefore, it was permissible to draw the inference that the assessee did receive monies from him for match-fixing. According to Mr. Verma, the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission were "material" collected by the AO after the search and is relatable to the evidence gathered during the search within the meaning of Section 158BB(1) and, therefore, he was entitled to rely upon them for the purpose of making an assessment of the match-fixing receipts. Mr. Verma also relied on the statement of the assessee made before the CBI (copy filed) in which the assessee was alleged to have made an admission that he was indulging in match-fixing for monetary consideration.

It has thus been held that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission, which formed the basis of the addition for match-fixing receipts, cannot be relied upon for making the additions as they were not evidence found during the search. In the present case also, no evidence was found during the search of the premises of the assessee to establish that he received any consideration in money for match-fixing. But, what the CIT(A) has held and what the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) contended was that the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission can constitute material or information as are available with the AO and hence can form the basis of the addition. We are unable to accept the submission, which is based on the amendment made to Section 158BB(1) by the Finance (No. .2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1995, since it gives effect only to the first part of the amendment and ignores the second part thereof, which is perhaps the more important part. The second part of the amendment makes it a condition that the material or information available with the AO after the search must be "relatable to such evidence", meaning thereby that they must relate to some material collected during the search. But, if no material was collected during the search to show that the assessee received money for match-fixing, then the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission cannot be relied upon as material or information "relatable to such evidence" in the block assessment. In the case before us, a perusal of the assessment order shows that no such evidence was collected during the search to show that the assessee was taking money for fixing cricket matches. The AO has almost entirely relied on the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission for the purpose of making the addition. He has also referred to the statements of the assessee made before the CBI and the IT authorities during the search. So far as the statements made before the IT authorities are concerned, the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of Manoj Prabhakar says that they cannot constitute evidence found during the search for the purpose of making the block assessment. The statements made by the assessee and Mukesh Gupta before the CBI or the Madhavan Commission also stand on the same footing, in our opinion. Those statements only constitute the basis for the reports of the above authorities (CBI and Madhavan Commission). In these circumstances, the ruling of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Prabhakar (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, hold that the addition for alleged match-fixing receipts cannot be supported. We delete the same.