Income-tax block assessment: loose papers rejected, family gift accepted, but unexplained third-party loan addition upheld

ITAT Hyderabad-AT held that additions for alleged unaccounted investment in property were unsustainable, as the Revenue relied only on loose papers and third-party statements without corroborative material. The Tribunal reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence and that undisclosed income in block assessment must be based on material found during search. Addition on amount received from assessee's father was deleted, treating it as a genuine gift arising out of natural love and affection in line with established SC principles on gifts between close relatives. However, addition relating to an unexplained loan from a third party was sustained. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1 crore on account of unaccounted investment in the purchase of property.
2. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs received from the assessee's father.
3. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs loan obtained from S. Sudha Rani.
4. Validity of notice issued under s. 153A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 1 crore on account of unaccounted investment in the purchase of property:
The primary issue in this appeal concerns the addition of Rs. 1 crore attributed to unaccounted investment in the purchase of a property. The facts reveal that during a search action at the premises of Shri C. Radha Krishna Kumar, a diary was seized which indicated that the actual consideration for the property was Rs. 165 lakhs, whereas the registered sale deed showed Rs. 65 lakhs. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that there was an 'on-money' payment of Rs. 1 crore. The assessee denied knowledge of the cash payments, stating the transaction was managed by her brothers. The AO relied on the seized diary and statements from the seller and the assessee's brother to justify the addition.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence, including the seized diary and statements, was insufficient to conclusively prove the payment of Rs. 1 crore as 'on-money.' The Tribunal emphasized that the seized material did not contain any direct reference to the assessee and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on conjectures and surmises, and hence, deleted the addition of Rs. 1 crore.

2. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs received from the assessee's father:
The second issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs received from the assessee's father, which the AO treated as not genuine. The assessee argued that the gift was given out of natural love and affection. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the relationship between the donor and the donee or the occasion for the gift. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. P. Mohanakala, the Tribunal held that the gift was genuine and deleted the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs.

3. Addition of Rs. 5 lakhs loan obtained from S. Sudha Rani:
The third issue involves the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs purportedly received as a loan from S. Sudha Rani. The assessee failed to provide a confirmation letter, and the AO treated the loan as unsubstantiated. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, stating that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the loan. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs was sustained.

4. Validity of notice issued under s. 153A:
The final issue concerns the validity of the notice issued under s. 153A. The assessee argued that the notice was invalid as there was no search action under s. 132 against her, and at best, a notice under s. 153C should have been issued. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not press this ground during the hearing and that under s. 292BB, the assessee could not raise objections after cooperating during the assessment. Therefore, this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 5 lakhs received from the assessee's father, while sustaining the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs loan from S. Sudha Rani and dismissing the ground regarding the validity of the notice under s. 153A.

---