Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 challenges an addition of Rs. 25.80 lakhs made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act. This addition arose from proceedings under section 153C read with 143(3), based on a seized excel sheet found during a search, indicating cash receipt by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as it was based solely on an uncorroborated seized document (printout). It emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence and the denial of cross-examination opportunity to the assessee, citing judicial precedents against making additions based on "dumb documents" without detailed supportive evidence.
Key Issues
Can an addition under Section 69A be made solely on the basis of an uncorroborated seized document without allowing the assessee cross-examination?
Sections Cited
153C, 143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1065643416(1), dated 13.06.2024, in case no. tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 69A addition of Rs. 25,80,000/- strictly going by the contents of the seized material which was found during the course of search dated 26.09.2017. He invited tribunal’s attention to the corresponding seized excel sheet (page 17 of learned CIT(A)’s discussion), that assessee has been found to have received cash of Rs. 25.80 lakhs which forms subject matter of addition herein.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and the Revenue’s vehement arguments. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition as the same is found to be based on a seized document (printout) which has neither been corroborated by the learned lower authorities nor the assessee herein has been afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the alleged recipient as per M/s Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (324) ELT (241) SC. I further quote (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) to conclude that such a dumb document does not result in any addition to be made if it is not followed by detailed supportive evidence.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 16.12.2024.