SHRI VED PRAKASH AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 16.05.2016 of ld. CIT (A)-30, New Delhi.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “That on the facts and in circumstances of the Appellant’s case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 50 lacs being undisclosed investments u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged cash loan given a) by holding content of dumb documents i.e. page 93, 94 and 95 seized from the business premises of M/s Prakash Industries Limited during search action as true. b) without considering the fact that content of the affidavit have been confirmed by Ld. AO through cross examination of the deponents and by recording their statement during remand proceedings.

Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was conducted on 30.10.2012 at the premises of Prakash Industries and the assessee.

During the search at corporate office of Prakash Industries Ltd., three loose pages – 93, 94 and 95 were found and seized and Annexurised as A-12. These loose paper was confronted to Ved Prakash Agarwal, Chairman Prakash Industries Ltd. during his statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 31.10.2012, he stated that page no. 93 and 95 are repeats and page 95 is receipt given by C.B. Bansal, Advocate for cash loan of Rs.15 lacs given to him sometimes in October, 2012 and page no. 94 is receipt given by Mahamantra Das for cash loan of Rs.20 lacs given to him sometimes in April, 2012 out of which Rs.3.6 lacs has been repaid.

The Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.50,00,000/- on the basis of said lose papers seized and statement recorded of the assessee during the course of search. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition.

During the arguments before us, the ld. AR relied on the submissions taken before the ld. CIT (A) and on the paper book containing pages 1 to 84. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT (A) especially sub-para no. Xii of para 4.7.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

Subsequent to the above statement recorded on 31.10.2012, the assessee has filed a letter before the Addl. DIT(Inv.), Unit-3 retracting the statement given before the authorities on 31.10.2012. The relevant portion of the letter dated 02.11.2012 retracting the earlier statement is as under: “After two days of interrogation and mental torture and threats the officers compelled me to sign on sheets of questions and answers which were written by them late in the evening on 31st October 2012. I was not even allowed to read the answers which had been written by the Departmental officers. I believe that I was made to sign all written sheets of papers wherein I had purportedly/allegedly confessed that one Shri Aggarwal from Calcutta helped me in bringing unutilized cash in the form of share capital, share premium, share application and unwarranted loan. The officers also made me sign on some chart of companies which were said to be paper companies from whom share capital, share premium etc has been received. I was also made to sign on a reply framed by the officer that unaccounted cash

Further, on perusal of the receipts reveal that the receipts have been undated and unsigned. There is no signature of either the recipients or the payer. The name mentioned on the receipts are Sh. C.B. Bansal and Mahamantra Das. During the remand proceedings, the statement of Sh. C.B. Bansal R/o A-40, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi has been recorded wherein Sh. C.B. Bansal denied on receiving any cash loan from the assessee. The relevant part of the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer is as under: (page no. 65, 66 marked) “Question No. 5: Whether you have taken loan of Rs.15 lakh from M/s Prakash Industries Ltd. and Rs.15 lakh from Sh. Ved Prakash Agarwal and when it was repaid?

In addition, Sh. C.B. Bansal has also filed an affidavit dated 10.03.2015 before the Assessing Officer reaffirming his statement.

Further, the Assessing Officer has also recorded statement of Sh. Mahamantra Das (Kamla Shankar Dubey, the other name) R/o 165, Ground Floor, ISKCON wherein he categorically refused of having taken any loan from the assessee. The relevant part of the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer is as under: “Question No. 3: Do you know Sh. Ved Prakash Agarwal and M/s Prakash Industries Ltd.?

In addition, Sh. Mahamantra Das has also filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2015 before the Assessing Officer reaffirming his statement.

We find all these facts have been available before the ld. CIT (A). However, the ld. CIT (A) did not accept the evidences filed by the assessee during the remand report and held that the statements and affidavits are nothing but an afterthought and only to help the assessee.

Holding this, he confirmed the addition. We also find that the ld. CIT (A) has also confirmed the fact that “the three unsigned receipts are incriminating documents found in the search and seizure action u/s 132, which shows actual transactions have been taken place. On going through the entire factual position, we are unable to accept with the observation of the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the addition and at the same time accepting the fact that the receipts are unsigned and yet

Having gone through the material facts on record as narrated above viz. the statements of the assessee as well as the counter parties, affidavits, the receipts per se and also the observation of the ld. CIT (A) that the receipts are unsigned, we hereby hold that no addition is called for based on these documents and hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this account is hereby directed to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/02/2020.