Revenue's appeal against deletion of unaccounted cash addition dismissed; Tribunal emphasizes lack of concrete evidence

The appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs. 52,26,000 made under section 69 for unaccounted cash payment for the purchase of a shop was dismissed. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the unreliability of the seized document, despite the Revenue's argument that the cash payment was confirmed by the builder. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to support the addition and concluding that it was based on assumptions and conjectures without substantial proof.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition u/s 69 for unaccounted cash payment for purchase of property.

Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 52,26,000 made by the AO as unaccounted money for the acquisition of a shop. The facts revealed that during a search and seizure action u/s 132, it was found that the assessee had paid Rs. 52,26,000 in cash for the purchase of a shop. The AO treated this as undisclosed investment u/s 69 and added it to the total income of the assessee.

The assessee contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the seized document was not reliable as it lacked signatures and that the actual payment made was through a cheque duly recorded in the books. Citing legal precedent, the assessee argued that entries in a third person's books cannot be used against another person.

After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 52,26,000 based on the unreliability of the seized document. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the seized document was incriminating and the cash payment was confirmed by the builder. However, the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision was upheld based on lack of concrete evidence to support the addition.

The Tribunal found that the entire assessment was based on entries in the seized document and the statement of the builder. Noting discrepancies in the area of the shop and lack of specific answers from the builder, the Tribunal concluded that the addition was made on assumptions and conjectures without substantial evidence. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the addition.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming the decision to delete the addition of Rs. 52,26,000.

---