Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue is in appeal against orders for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. The assessment involved additions based on a belief that the assessee sold farmlands at higher rates than registered. The AO's addition was based on a search on a third-party where a transaction between HBPL and a third-party was found.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition was made on suspicion and assumption, without any corroborative evidence. No incriminating material was found from the assessee's or HBPL's premises. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals.
Key Issues
Whether additions made based on a third-party's transaction, without any incriminating material from the assessee's premises, are sustainable in law.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(2), 142(1), 132, 132(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The revenue is in further appeal for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 & 2019-20 against separate but identical orders of learned first appellate authority. The assessee has filed cross-objections. However, the cross- objections have not been pressed by Ld. AR during hearing before us. First, we take up revenue’s appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises out of an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana [CIT(A)] on 22-07-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act on 31-03-2023. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 Pursuant to search action u/s 132 on the assessee and other entities on 16-11-2021, an assessment has been framed against the assessee. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in sale and purchase of farmland from farmers. It has been alleged by Ld. AO that the assessee sold farmlands at higher rates in comparison to rates as shown in the registers. Upon formation of belief of escapement of income, a notice u/s 148 was issued by Ld. AO to the assessee on 24-03- 2022 which was followed by notice u/s 143(2) as well as notices u/s 142(1) directing assessee to file requisite details / submissions etc. 2.2 It transpired that the assessee sold various properties to another entity M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘HBPL’) which have been tabulated in para 3.1 of the assessment order. During another separate search proceedings, statements u/s 132(4) was recorded on oath from Shri Ajay Kumar Prabhakar of M/s Prabhakar Associates and proprietor of M/s Ajay Kumar, Stamp vendor as well as from Shri Raj Kumar Sachdeva, partner of M/s Prabhakar Associates. Shri Ajay Kumar was writing sale deeds and agreement to sell on behalf of directors of HBPL. These two persons acted as deed writers and facilitated execution of agreement to sell and registration of sale deeds as per the directions of directors of HBPL. These two deed writers were also covered in separate search proceedings. As per statement of Shri Ajay Kumar Prabhakar, the average rate of land purchased by HBPL from various farmers, as provided by the directors, varied between Rs. 2 to 2.5 Crores per acre. 2.3 During assessment proceedings of HBPL, certain evidences were found which proved that HBPL had purchased the agricultural land at much higher rates than the prevailing circle rates. Applying the same logic and analogy, it was concluded by Ld. AO that the lands were sold by the assessee to HBPL at rates higher than the prevalent circle / registered rates. Accordingly, the assessee was show-caused wherein Ld. AO proceeded to adopt higher rate of Rs.2.60 Crores per acre for land as sold by the assessee to HBPL. 2.4 The assessee, in its reply, vehemently refuted the allegations of Ld. AO and opposed proposed addition. However, going by the fact that the actual price of subsequent sale of plots by HBPL was much higher in comparison to the registered value of the plot, there was clear cut suppression of turnover in hands of HBPL. Therefore, it could not be ruled out that the assessee company had sold the land at much higher rate than the prevailing market rates. Accordingly, after allowing discount of 15% from computed values, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.259.70 Lacs in the hands of the assessee.
2.5 Similar assessment was framed for AY 2019-20 wherein Ld. AO allowed relief of 10% from computed values and made similar addition in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed both the assessments in first appeal. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee assailed the jurisdiction of Ld. AO on legal grounds as well as on merits. It was, inter-alia, contended that the reopening was merely on the basis of ‘reason to suspect’ rather than on ‘reasons to believe’ since there was no document to substantiate the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee. Another argument was that no incriminating material was found either from the premises of the assessee or from the premises of the third-party which would indicate exchange of higher sale consideration between the assessee and HBPL. The assessee also opposed impugned additions on merits and pleaded for deletion of the same. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee but concurred with assessee’s submission on merits. In para 5.2.3 of the impugned order (Page-33), it was observed that entire addition was made on the basis of a documents seized during the search in the case of another person. However, this ledger belonged to a third-party. It contained transaction of HBPL with a third-party which had no link with the transactions of the assessee. The addition was made merely on the assumption that since one transaction between the two independent parties has taken place @Rs.2.6 Crores per acre, the transaction of the assessee (being seller) and one of these parties (being buyer of this property) must also have been done at the same rate. As opposed to this, the price of land would depend on variety of factors particularly in the case of agricultural land. The location, area as well as other intangible factors would affect the price of the land. 3.3 While concluding so, the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait (37 ITR 151) holding that no addition could be made on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises. Similarly, in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775), it was held that AO is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without refence to any evidence or material. These case laws duly supported the case of the assessee. Further, it is well settled law that the statement of third person without any corroborative evidence would not have any evidentiary value and the same hold no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. The assessee was also searched, however, no document was found from the premises of the assessee. Therefore, the addition so made by Ld. AO was deleted. Similar was the adjudication for AY 2019-20. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeals before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. It emerges that the assessee was searched along with various other entities. It is undisputed fact that no incriminating material or document, whatsoever, has been found from the possession / premises of the assessee which would indicate exchange of higher sale consideration between the assessee and HBPL. Even no incriminating material, in this regard, has been found from the premises of HBPL. This addition is merely based on search on a third-party where document containing certain transaction between HBPL and third-party has been found. The Ld. AO has merely drawn analogy from the said document and applied the same sale consideration in the hands of the assessee without there being any corroborative evidence. There is no iota of evidence to support the impugned addition. The impugned addition merely proceeds on the assumption that since HBPL has procured the land from a third-party at higher prices, the evidence of which has been found during separate independent search, the land as procured from the assessee would also have been purchased at a higher price. Thus, the addition is merely on suspicion, assumption, conjectures and surmise which could not be sustained in law. As rightly observed by Ld. CIT(A), the entire addition has been made on the basis of a document seized during the search in the case of another person. However, this ledger belonged to a third-party. It contained transaction of HBPL with a third-party which had no link with the transaction of the assessee. The addition merely proceeds on the assumption that since one transaction between the two independent parties has taken place at higher price, similar consideration must have been passed in assessee’s case. There is no evidence with Ld. AO to support such a theory or extrapolation. The case laws as referred by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order duly support the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the same could not be faulted with. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned orders for both the years, in any manner.
In fact, Ld. AR has brought on record the decision rendered by Tribunal in the case of M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.880/Chd/2024 & 1036/Chd/2024 for AY 2021-22 order dated 17-07- 2025) wherein the revenue’s appeal has been dismissed and assessee’s appeal has been allowed. Following this decision, revenue’s similar appeal for AY 2019-20 has been dismissed by Tribunal vide order dated 03-09-2025. One of the issues in revenue’s appeal for AY 2019-20 was addition of unaccounted investment made for purchase of agricultural land from the assessee which is similar issue in revenue’s appeal in the present appeal for AY 2019-20. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of impugned addition by Ld. CIT(A). In other words, similar corresponding addition as made in the hands of HBPL for AY 2019-20 stood ultimately deleted. This being so, similar view is to be taken in the present appeal.
Both the revenue’s appeals stand dismissed. The assessee’s cross- objections stand dismissed as not pressed.