2015 (12) TMI 1835 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses revenue's appeal due to lack of evidence in seized 'dumb document'

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the seized document labeled as a 'dumb document' lacked sufficient evidence to support the ... Addition treating seized documents as 'dumb document' - addition of undisclosed purchases and investments and also undisclosed expenditure and investment - HELD THAT:- We find from the facts of the case as well from the remand report of the AO, who has simply mentioned that the relevant document has been seized from the custody of the assessee and hence, the assessee is obliged to explain the seized document properly. Further, the AO in its remand report has mentioned that no clear cut explanation has been furnished. In this connection the CIT(A) sought certain clarifications from the AO relating to the remand report furnished by him. A.O. vide his letter dated 2l.12.2011 responded to this letter by more or less reiterating the facts stated in the earlier remand report dated 29.3.201l. However, he remained silent about my query as to whether any statement of the assessee has been recorded regarding the contents of the seized documents BRI/20 Page-7 during the course of search or during the course of post search investigation which leads me to presume that no such statement was recorded regarding the contents of this seized document We are of the view that page no. 7 of BRI-20 is a dumb document and particularly one of the director of the assessee company Shri Subrata Banik was deposed during the course of search on 07.11.2006 but no question about this document was asked, which implies that this page was not considered as important and even after search no questions were asked about the narrations or entries. In view of the above, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and both the issues of revenue's appeal are dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that Page 7 of BRI/20 is a 'dumb document'.2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,10,33,507/- on account of undisclosed purchases and investment in stock.3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,10,220/- on account of undisclosed expenditure/investment.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that Page 7 of BRI/20 is a 'dumb document':The CIT(A) observed that Page 7 of BRI/20, which was seized during a search operation, contained rough notings without any specific dates, years, or names linking it to the assessee. The document was described as a 'dumb document' since it did not indicate ownership or the period it pertained to. The CIT(A) emphasized that no corroborative material or evidence was provided to validate the entries on the document. The AO failed to establish a connection between the figures on the document and any stock discrepancies detected during the survey. Furthermore, no statements regarding the contents of this document were recorded during the search or post-search investigation, leading to the conclusion that the document could not be relied upon for making additions.2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,10,33,507/- on account of undisclosed purchases and investment in stock:The AO had noted discrepancies between the purchase and sales figures in the seized document and the e-return filed by the assessee. The AO concluded that the assessee had suppressed purchases amounting to Rs. 5,10,33,507/-. However, the CIT(A) found that the document did not provide sufficient details to substantiate the addition. The CIT(A) noted that the figures on the document could not be linked to any specific period or entity, and the AO did not provide evidence of unaccounted stock found during the survey. The CIT(A) concluded that the addition was not justified as the document was deemed a 'dumb document' and lacked corroborative evidence.3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 98,10,220/- on account of undisclosed expenditure/investment:The AO added Rs. 98,10,220/- as unexplained expenditure based on the same seized document. The CIT(A) observed that the document did not contain specific dates or years, making it impossible to reconcile the figures with the assessee's accounts. The CIT(A) reiterated that the document was a 'dumb document' and could not be used as the sole basis for making additions without corroborative evidence. The AO's failure to link the figures to any specific period or entity further weakened the case for the addition.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the seized document (Page 7 of BRI/20) was a 'dumb document' and could not be relied upon for making additions without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the additions, and the document lacked specific details to establish a connection to the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, confirming the deletion of the additions made by the AO.