Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 challenged an addition of Rs. 5,65,000/- under section 69C for unexplained interest expenditure. This addition was made by lower authorities based on documents seized during a search/survey operation dated 09.09.2015. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte as the assessee did not appear.
Held
The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the addition, as the seized documents lacked specific details of the interest expenditure and it remained unsubstantiated during scrutiny. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition, holding that additions based on "dumb documents" are not sustainable.
Key Issues
Validity of an addition under section 69C for unexplained interest expenditure when based on unsubstantiated seized documents.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69C, Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 10.06.2024 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-31/10297/2019-20, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against the assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 69C addition of unexplained interest expenditure amounting to Rs.5,65,000/- in assessee’s hands going by the documents found/seized during the course of search/survey operation dated 09.09.2015.
Mr. Anand, learned Sr. DR, further takes us to the assessment discussion dated 29.12.2017 at page 2 in para 2 that learned Assessing Officer herein had adopted the corresponding figures of the assessee’s interest payment only for the purpose of making the impugned addition, which deserve to be sustained herein. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions and see no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that contents of the seized documents extracted in the assessment order nowhere throw any light on the corresponding details of the impugned
2 | P a g e interest expenditure nor they have been substantiated during the course of scrutiny.
Faced with this situation, we quote Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) to conclude that the impugned addition based on the foregoing dumb document is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. Ordered accordingly.