Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the business of art silk cloth, filed its return for assessment year 2009-2010. A search operation on the 'Sumeet' Group revealed two sets of electronic accounts, one of which ('Purchi.exe') contained data not reflected in regular books. This data indicated job work aggregating to over ₹34 lakhs from M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and over ₹3.7 lakhs from M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd., which was not accounted for by the assessee. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 based on this information.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on third-party digital data from the 'Sumeet' Group's 'Purchi.exe' software cannot be sustained without proper corroboration and without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. The principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not confronted with the full data and not given an opportunity to cross-examine. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer can be sustained based solely on third-party digital data without providing the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination and without independent corroboration.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 148, Section 69C, Section 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2009-2010, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts and circumstances as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in reopening assessment u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 34,24,930/ addition of Rs. 34,24,930/- on account of unexplained on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act expenditure u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) ha law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in s erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 9,33,219/ addition of Rs. 9,33,219/- on account of unexplained on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act. investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act.
4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed 4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed 4. It is therefore prayed that above assessment framed u/s. 147 may kindly be quashed and/or the u/s. 147 may kindly be quashed and/or the additions additions made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.
Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of art Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of art Briefly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of art silk cloth under the proprietorship concern silk cloth under the proprietorship concern M/s Shree Om Textile M/s Shree Om Textile. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment ye The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment ye The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 04.09.2009 declaring a total income of under consideration on 04.09.2009 declaring a total income of under consideration on 04.09.2009 declaring a total income of ₹3,18,580/-. During the relevant year, the assessee purchased . During the relevant year, the assessee purchased . During the relevant year, the assessee purchased grey cloth from the open market and got the same processed on grey cloth from the open market and got the same processed on grey cloth from the open market and got the same processed on job-work basis through various processors, including work basis through various processors, including work basis through various processors, including M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. ocessors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd.
2.1 A search and seizure operation was carried out by the A search and seizure operation was carried out by the A search and seizure operation was carried out by the Income-tax Department on the entities of the “Sumeet” Group, tax Department on the entities of the “Sumeet” Group, tax Department on the entities of the “Sumeet” Group, which included M/s M/s M/s Bajrang Bajrang Bajrang Processors Processors Processors Pvt. Pvt. Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. Ltd.. The investigation revealed that the investigation revealed that the said group maintained two sets of said group maintained two sets of accounts in electronic form accounts in electronic form — one in the software titled “FAS.exe” one in the software titled “FAS.exe” and another in “Purchi.exe”. It was observed that the data and another in “Purchi.exe”. It was observed that the data and another in “Purchi.exe”. It was observed that the data recorded in “Purchi.exe” was not reflected in the regular books of recorded in “Purchi.exe” was not reflected in the regular books of recorded in “Purchi.exe” was not reflected in the regular books of account.
2.3 Upon analysis of Upon analysis of the digital data, the Investigation Wing the digital data, the Investigation Wing found that job-work aggregating to work aggregating to ₹34,24,930/— — comprising ₹30,53,235/– from from M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and ₹3,71,695/– from M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd. — was allegedly was allegedly carried out for the assessee, though the carried out for the assessee, though the same was not accounted same was not accounted for in its books. 2.4 Based Based Based on on on the the the said said said information information information received received received from from from the the the Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to Investigation Wing, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and issued notice under Section 148 of t and issued notice under Section 148 of the Income- -tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 30.03.2016. In response, the assessee reiterated its (“the Act”) on 30.03.2016. In response, the assessee reiterated its (“the Act”) on 30.03.2016. In response, the assessee reiterated its return of income originally filed. return of income originally filed. 2.5 During reassessment, the assessee was required to explain During reassessment, the assessee was required to explain During reassessment, the assessee was required to explain the job-work receipts appearing in the work receipts appearing in the Purchi.exe Purchi.exe data. The assessee denied having undertaken any such job e denied having undertaken any such job e denied having undertaken any such job-work and disowned the entries appearing in the said software. The disowned the entries appearing in the said software. The disowned the entries appearing in the said software. The Assessing Officer, after examining the seized data, rejected this Assessing Officer, after examining the seized data, rejected this Assessing Officer, after examining the seized data, rejected this explanation, holding that the explanation, holding that the Purchi.exe data reflected data reflected fresh processing of grey fab of grey fabric and not re-processing as contended by as contended by the Sumeet Group. 2.6 The findings of the Assessing Officer, summarised in The findings of the Assessing Officer, summarised in The findings of the Assessing Officer, summarised in paragraph 6.3.3 of the assessment order, record that (i) the paragraph 6.3.3 of the assessment order, record that (i) the paragraph 6.3.3 of the assessment order, record that (i) the Sumeet Group was maintaining two sets of books in electronic Sumeet Group was maintaining two sets of books in electronic Sumeet Group was maintaining two sets of books in electronic form; (ii) the Purchi.exe rchi.exe data did not reconcile with the audited data did not reconcile with the audited figures; and (iii) shortages of grey fabric appeared therein, which figures; and (iii) shortages of grey fabric appeared therein, which figures; and (iii) shortages of grey fabric appeared therein, which were possible only in fresh processing, not in re were possible only in fresh processing, not in re- -processing of defected processing of fabric. Consequently, the Assessing Officer defected processing of fabric. Consequently, the Assessing Officer defected processing of fabric. Consequently, the Assessing Officer concluded that unaccounted job d that unaccounted job-work had been carried out and work had been carried out and added the corresponding amount to the income of the assessee, added the corresponding amount to the income of the assessee, added the corresponding amount to the income of the assessee, together with an estimated profit element of 10%. together with an estimated profit element of 10%. together with an estimated profit element of 10%. For ready reference same is reproduced as under: reference same is reproduced as under:
“6.3.3. In this regard, first of all, it 6.3.3. In this regard, first of all, it would be pertinent to would be pertinent to mention here that a racket of unaccounted job work carried mention here that a racket of unaccounted job work carried mention here that a racket of unaccounted job work carried out by various companies of Sumit Group has been out by various companies of Sumit Group has been out by various companies of Sumit Group has been unearthed and established by the Department. It is unearthed and established by the Department. It is unearthed and established by the Department. It is established that the companies are maintaining two sets of established that the companies are maintaining two sets of established that the companies are maintaining two sets of books of account books of account in electronic form ie. in the FAS.exe in electronic form ie. in the FAS.exe software and Purchi.exe software. When sale/job work software and Purchi.exe software. When sale/job work software and Purchi.exe software. When sale/job work data maintained in both the software were compared with data maintained in both the software were compared with data maintained in both the software were compared with sales /jobwork income disclosed in audit report, it is found sales /jobwork income disclosed in audit report, it is found sales /jobwork income disclosed in audit report, it is found that data maintained in FAS.exe software matche that data maintained in FAS.exe software matched with the d with the data of sale register based on which audit report was data of sale register based on which audit report was data of sale register based on which audit report was prepared. But data of sale/job work maintained in prepared. But data of sale/job work maintained in prepared. But data of sale/job work maintained in purchi.exe software does not matched with job work purchi.exe software does not matched with job work purchi.exe software does not matched with job work disclosed. The only explanation offered by the principal disclosed. The only explanation offered by the principal disclosed. The only explanation offered by the principal officer/director of respective co officer/director of respective company is that parties return mpany is that parties return the material on the grounds of defect, etc. that needs to be the material on the grounds of defect, etc. that needs to be the material on the grounds of defect, etc. that needs to be reprocessed by them and purchi software contains only reprocessed by them and purchi software contains only reprocessed by them and purchi software contains only reprocessed material, and final dispatch invoices have been reprocessed material, and final dispatch invoices have been reprocessed material, and final dispatch invoices have been prepared in financial software whereas reprocess or prepared in financial software whereas reprocess or double double printing data/reprinting is shown in purchi software. On re printing data/reprinting is shown in purchi software. On re printing data/reprinting is shown in purchi software. On re- examining the data found in purchi.exe software and examining the data found in purchi.exe software and examining the data found in purchi.exe software and fas.exe, the following facts emerged: fas.exe, the following facts emerged: (I) In most of the cases where name matches, the quantity of ) In most of the cases where name matches, the quantity of ) In most of the cases where name matches, the quantity of grey received from the parties in pur grey received from the parties in purchi.exe software is chi.exe software is more than the quantity of grey received shown in more than the quantity of grey received shown in more than the quantity of grey received shown in fas.exe/GP.exe software. It shows that data found in fas.exe/GP.exe software. It shows that data found in fas.exe/GP.exe software. It shows that data found in purchi.exe purchi.exe purchi.exe software software software is is is not not not related related related with with with reprocessing/reprinting because in that case the quantity of reprocessing/reprinting because in that case the quantity of reprocessing/reprinting because in that case the quantity of grey received shall be less than grey received shall be less than quantity shown in quantity shown in fas.exe/GP.exe software. It is very clear that during fas.exe/GP.exe software. It is very clear that during fas.exe/GP.exe software. It is very clear that during reprocessing/reprinting, finished fabrics will be received by reprocessing/reprinting, finished fabrics will be received by reprocessing/reprinting, finished fabrics will be received by company and not the grey fabrics. But the data and Name company and not the grey fabrics. But the data and Name company and not the grey fabrics. But the data and Name of the parties identified from Purchi.exe and FAS.exe shows of the parties identified from Purchi.exe and FAS.exe shows of the parties identified from Purchi.exe and FAS.exe shows that grey has been received and after printing the length of rey has been received and after printing the length of rey has been received and after printing the length of grey received got shrunk and is reflected in the shortage grey received got shrunk and is reflected in the shortage grey received got shrunk and is reflected in the shortage table. (II) In the purchi.exe software, the number of parties for (II) In the purchi.exe software, the number of parties for (II) In the purchi.exe software, the number of parties for which job work done is around 3 to 4 times the numbers of which job work done is around 3 to 4 times the numbers of which job work done is around 3 to 4 times the numbers of parties parties found found in in Fa Fas.exe/GP.exe s.exe/GP.exe software. software. It It also also corroborates the finding that data found in purchi.exe corroborates the finding that data found in purchi.exe corroborates the finding that data found in purchi.exe software is not related with reprocessing/reprinted. In the software is not related with reprocessing/reprinted. In the software is not related with reprocessing/reprinted. In the case of Betex India Ltd., the parties found in Purchi.exe and case of Betex India Ltd., the parties found in Purchi.exe and case of Betex India Ltd., the parties found in Purchi.exe and Fas.exe/GP.exe match upto 50%. Such high Fas.exe/GP.exe match upto 50%. Such high Fas.exe/GP.exe match upto 50%. Such high match match match percentage of parties name is only due to involvement of ercentage of parties name is only due to involvement of ercentage of parties name is only due to involvement of party in unaccounted sale of finished material after the job party in unaccounted sale of finished material after the job party in unaccounted sale of finished material after the job work. (III) The concerned parties were also summoned by the (III) The concerned parties were also summoned by the (III) The concerned parties were also summoned by the Investigation Investigation Investigation Wing Wing Wing to to to verify verify verify whether whether whether they they they get get get reprocessing/reprinting of the gr reprocessing/reprinting of the grey on which job work has ey on which job work has not been done to their satisfaction. In their submission, they not been done to their satisfaction. In their submission, they not been done to their satisfaction. In their submission, they have have have explicitly explicitly explicitly stated stated stated that that that they they they did did did not not not get get get reprocessing/reprinting of fabrics by the job worker reprocessing/reprinting of fabrics by the job worker reprocessing/reprinting of fabrics by the job worker company. Perusal of their ledger account submitted further company. Perusal of their ledger account submitted further company. Perusal of their ledger account submitted further revealed that they have not shown the job work details at they have not shown the job work details at they have not shown the job work details mentioned in the Purchi.exe software. mentioned in the Purchi.exe software.” 2.7 Accordingly, the the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of the grey fabric, explain the source of the grey fabric, which was was subjected to processing and recorded in Purchi.Exe.software, b ecorded in Purchi.Exe.software, but the assessee t the assessee did not accept the fact of did not accept the fact of carrying out processing recorded in carrying out processing recorded in Purchi. Exe software, thus, the source of investment in grey Purchi. Exe software, thus, the source of investment in grey Purchi. Exe software, thus, the source of investment in grey fabric was also not accepted. The fabric was also not accepted. The Assessing Officer made addition Assessing Officer made addition for the jobwork charges as well as 10% profit on th for the jobwork charges as well as 10% profit on the sales of such e sales of such grey fabric.
On appeal, the Learned Commissioner of Income On appeal, the Learned Commissioner of Income On appeal, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the challenge to reassessment as well as the (Appeals) rejected the challenge to reassessment as well as the (Appeals) rejected the challenge to reassessment as well as the addition on merits, holding that the findings of the Investigation addition on merits, holding that the findings of the Investigation addition on merits, holding that the findings of the Investigation Wing constituted cogent material sufficien Wing constituted cogent material sufficient to sustain the t to sustain the addition.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book he Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book he Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a Paper Book containing various judicial judicial pronouncements.
Before us, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the Before us, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the Before us, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, did not press the legal ground concerning the validity of outset, did not press the legal ground concerning the validity of outset, did not press the legal ground concerning the validity of reassessment. On merits, it was contended that the assessee had reassessment. On merits, it was contended that the assessee had reassessment. On merits, it was contended that the assessee had no concern with the entries found in the no concern with the entries found in the Purchi.exe Purchi.exe software of the Sumeet Group, and that no documents, challans, or delivery the Sumeet Group, and that no documents, challans, or delivery the Sumeet Group, and that no documents, challans, or delivery notes bearing the assessee’s signature were found during the notes bearing the assessee’s signature were found during the notes bearing the assessee’s signature were found during the search. It was further urged that, in the absence of any seized ch. It was further urged that, in the absence of any seized ch. It was further urged that, in the absence of any seized material from the assessee’s premises, no addition could be made material from the assessee’s premises, no addition could be made material from the assessee’s premises, no addition could be made solely on the basis of third solely on the basis of third-party data, without affording party data, without affording opportunity of cross opportunity of cross-examination of those persons whose examination of those persons whose statements were relied upon. It was submitted that the addition relied upon. It was submitted that the addition relied upon. It was submitted that the addition based solely on third based solely on third-party digital data violated the principles of party digital data violated the principles of natural justice. The natural justice. The assessee cannot be held responsible for assessee cannot be held responsible for wrong doing if any done by the Sumeet group of entities. wrong doing if any done by the Sumeet group of entities. wrong doing if any done by the Sumeet group of entities. 5.1 The The Learned Learned Depar Departmental tmental Representative, Representative, however, however, submitted that the Tribunal in the case of submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Sumeet Group Sumeet Group had already upheld additions based on the already upheld additions based on the Purchi.exe Purchi.exe data, establishing the genuineness of the same, and therefore, establishing the genuineness of the same, and therefore, establishing the genuineness of the same, and therefore, corresponding expenditure on jobwork was liable to corresponding expenditure on jobwork was liable to corresponding expenditure on jobwork was liable to be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee as well. to tax in the hands of the assessee as well.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and We have carefully considered the rival submissions and We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The central issue for perused the material available on record. The central issue for perused the material available on record. The central issue for determination before us is whether an addition can be sustained determination before us is whether an addition can be sustained determination before us is whether an addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee solely on the basis of third of the assessee solely on the basis of third of the assessee solely on the basis of third-party documents and data, without any direct nexus being established documents and data, without any direct nexus being established documents and data, without any direct nexus being established and without confronting the assessee with the underlying and without confronting the assessee with the underlying and without confronting the assessee with the underlying evidence or affording opportunity of cross evidence or affording opportunity of cross-examination. examination.
6.1 It is undisputed that in It is undisputed that in the case of Sumeet group of entities the case of Sumeet group of entities it is found that same were engaged in carrying out it is found that same were engaged in carrying out it is found that same were engaged in carrying out jobwork of processing, which was recorded in the which was recorded in the Purchi.Exe Software but same was not considered for the purpose of same was not considered for the purpose of regular regular books of accounts. Entries in the name of the assessee were also found ntries in the name of the assessee were also found ntries in the name of the assessee were also found in data of said Purchi. Exe data of said Purchi. Exe software maintained by “Sumeet” Group maintained by “Sumeet” Group. A detailed of such entries A detailed of such entries for the period from 01.09.2008 to 01.09.2008 to 30.03.2009 in the account of account of Bajranj Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Bajranj Processors Pvt. Ltd. and entries for the period from period from 24.20.2008 to 20.11.2008 in the 20.11.2008 in the account of Betex India Ltd. has been reproduced by the Betex India Ltd. has been reproduced by the Betex India Ltd. has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order. Assessing Officer in the impugned order. 6.2 Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) pointed Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) pointed Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) pointed out that addition made by the Assessing Officer in out that addition made by the Assessing Officer in out that addition made by the Assessing Officer in the case of Sumeet group of the entities has been upheld by the Tribunal Sumeet group of the entities has been upheld by the Tribunal Sumeet group of the entities has been upheld by the Tribunal and since the corresponding income from jobwork appearing in since the corresponding income from jobwork appearing in since the corresponding income from jobwork appearing in Purchi.Exe. software has been held by the ITAT as assessable Purchi.Exe. software has been held by the ITAT as assessable Purchi.Exe. software has been held by the ITAT as assessable in the hands of Sumeet Group of companies, the hands of Sumeet Group of companies, therefore, this therefore, this fact is established that said entities were engaged in established that said entities were engaged in established that said entities were engaged in carrying out activities of jobwork obwork of processing of grey fabric recorded of processing of grey fabric recorded in Purch. Exe software. . 6.3 So the question arise So the question arise as to whether in such circumstance whether in such circumstance can addition made in the hands of the asse can addition made in the hands of the assessee. We find that the ssee. We find that the assessee was carrying out jobwork from those two companies of assessee was carrying out jobwork from those two companies of assessee was carrying out jobwork from those two companies of Sumeet group in regular regular course and entries for such course and entries for such job work are appearing in the FAS Software in relation to Jobwork carried out FAS Software in relation to Jobwork carried out FAS Software in relation to Jobwork carried out by Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Bete by Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Betex India Ltd. x India Ltd.
6.4 In our opinion, In our opinion, appearing of entries in the name of assessee appearing of entries in the name of assessee in Purchi. Exe software in Purchi. Exe software cannot be a work of imagination or any cannot be a work of imagination or any enemy with such said entities. such said entities. The assessee was doing regular he assessee was doing regular jobwork which is record jobwork which is recorded in the books of account of the assessee of the assessee also, so it is not unlikely that assessee o it is not unlikely that assessee might had not carried out had not carried out such work but during the course of assessment the assessee did uring the course of assessment the assessee did uring the course of assessment the assessee did not seek any cross examination of those parties not seek any cross examination of those parties not seek any cross examination of those parties, but now assessee is claiming that no such opportunity was pr assessee is claiming that no such opportunity was pr assessee is claiming that no such opportunity was provided to the assessee.
6.5 It is trite law that the edifice of assessment must rest upon It is trite law that the edifice of assessment must rest upon It is trite law that the edifice of assessment must rest upon credible evidence tested through due process. The Hon’ble credible evidence tested through due process. The Hon’ble credible evidence tested through due process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)] held that no material collected from third parties can be 713 (SC)] held that no material collected from third parties can be 713 (SC)] held that no material collected from third parties can be used against an assessee unless the assessee has been informed used against an assessee unless the assessee has been informed used against an assessee unless the assessee has been informed of such material and given an opportunity to controvert it. In that of such material and given an opportunity to controvert it. In that of such material and given an opportunity to controvert it. In that case, the Court emphasised that evidence case, the Court emphasised that evidence behind the back of the behind the back of the assessee, however incriminating, cannot be made the foundation assessee, however incriminating, cannot be made the foundation assessee, however incriminating, cannot be made the foundation of an addition unless duly confronted and proved. of an addition unless duly confronted and proved.
6.6 Likewise, in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)], the Supreme Cou [(2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)], the Supreme Cou [(2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)], the Supreme Court held that denial of cross held that denial of cross-examination of witnesses whose examination of witnesses whose statements form the basis of an order is a serious flaw that statements form the basis of an order is a serious flaw that statements form the basis of an order is a serious flaw that vitiates the entire proceedings, as it amounts to a violation of the vitiates the entire proceedings, as it amounts to a violation of the vitiates the entire proceedings, as it amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that an order principles of natural justice. The Court observed that an order principles of natural justice. The Court observed that an order based on statements not subjected to cross sed on statements not subjected to cross-examination “cannot examination “cannot stand in the eye of law”. stand in the eye of law”.
6.7 Further, in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)], it was enunciated that while the Income ITR 775 (SC)], it was enunciated that while the Income ITR 775 (SC)], it was enunciated that while the Income-tax authorities are not bound by the strict rules authorities are not bound by the strict rules of evidence, they are of evidence, they are bound by the rules of natural justice. Any assessment founded bound by the rules of natural justice. Any assessment founded bound by the rules of natural justice. Any assessment founded upon suspicion, conjecture, or surmise, without providing the upon suspicion, conjecture, or surmise, without providing the upon suspicion, conjecture, or surmise, without providing the assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon, is assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon, is assessee an opportunity to rebut the evidence relied upon, is invalid.
6.8 In the present case, it is undisput In the present case, it is undisputed that the foundation of ed that the foundation of the addition rests upon data recovered from the computer system the addition rests upon data recovered from the computer system the addition rests upon data recovered from the computer system of a third party — the “Sumeet” Group. The assessee was neither the “Sumeet” Group. The assessee was neither the “Sumeet” Group. The assessee was neither confronted with the full contents of such data nor afforded the confronted with the full contents of such data nor afforded the confronted with the full contents of such data nor afforded the opportunity to cross opportunity to cross-examine the officers or representatives of ers or representatives of M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. whose alleged transactions were attributed to the assessee. Such whose alleged transactions were attributed to the assessee. Such whose alleged transactions were attributed to the assessee. Such omission, in our considered view, constitutes a procedural omission, in our considered view, constitutes a procedural omission, in our considered view, constitutes a procedural infirmity going to the root of the matter. infirmity going to the root of the matter.
6.9 Applying the aforesaid judicial dicta to the present case, we Applying the aforesaid judicial dicta to the present case, we Applying the aforesaid judicial dicta to the present case, we find that although the data contained in the find that although the data contained in the Purchi.exe Purchi.exe software was treated as incriminating evidence, the assessee was not was treated as incriminating evidence, the assessee was not was treated as incriminating evidence, the assessee was not provided copies of the relevant material nor afforded any provided copies of the relevant material nor afforded any provided copies of the relevant material nor afforded any opportunity to cross- -examine the persons of the Sumeet Group examine the persons of the Sumeet Group whose statements were made the foundation of the addition. The whose statements were made the foundation of the addition. The whose statements were made the foundation of the addition. The Assessing Officer’s conclusion rests on material unearthed from a ssing Officer’s conclusion rests on material unearthed from a ssing Officer’s conclusion rests on material unearthed from a third party, and in the absence of independent corroboration or third party, and in the absence of independent corroboration or third party, and in the absence of independent corroboration or opportunity to rebut, such material cannot be treated as opportunity to rebut, such material cannot be treated as opportunity to rebut, such material cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the assessee. conclusive evidence against the assessee.
6.10 In light of the foregoing In light of the foregoing discussion and guided by the ratio discussion and guided by the ratio of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) Andaman Timber Industries (supra), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), and Kishinchand Chellaram (supra) Kishinchand Chellaram (supra), we are of the , we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the stage of the Assessing Offic the stage of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the impugned er. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the lower authorities are set aside, and the issue on orders of the lower authorities are set aside, and the issue on orders of the lower authorities are set aside, and the issue on merits is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the merits is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the merits is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions:
(a) The Assessing Officer shall furnish to the assessee complete (a) The Assessing Officer shall furnish to the assessee complete (a) The Assessing Officer shall furnish to the assessee complete details and copies of all material, data, and digital records found d copies of all material, data, and digital records found d copies of all material, data, and digital records found from from from the the the “Sumeet” “Sumeet” “Sumeet” Group Group Group pertaining pertaining pertaining to to to the the the assessee. assessee. assessee. (b) The Assessing Officer shall afford to the assessee an (b) The Assessing Officer shall afford to the assessee an (b) The Assessing Officer shall afford to the assessee an opportunity of cross opportunity of cross-examination of the concerned persons of examination of the concerned persons of M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. M/s Bajrang Processors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd. M/s Betex India Pvt. Ltd., if so desired. We have noticed that such request had not been We have noticed that such request had not been We have noticed that such request had not been made on the part of the assessee during reassessment made on the part of the assessee during reassessment made on the part of the assessee during reassessment proceedings but for finalization of this issue in dispute, it is proceedings but for finalization of this issue in dispute, it is proceedings but for finalization of this issue in dispute, it is important that those parties are confro important that those parties are confronted by the assessee nted by the assessee (c) The Assessing Officer shall thereafter re (c) The Assessing Officer shall thereafter re-adjudicate the issue adjudicate the issue afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law afresh, by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law and after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. and after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard. and after affording the assessee due opportunity of being heard.
6.11 Accordingly, the Accordingly, the grounds on merit are restored back to the restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. file of the Assessing Officer.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.