2008 (9) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Court upholds deletion of addition based on seized diaries entries, revenue burden of proof not met.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI (CENTRAL) -II Versus DK. GUPTA

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs 7,53,55,000 based on entries in seized diaries. The court upheld the ... Addition on basis of notings in diaries seized from the assessee’s premises - tribunal noted that all the evidence, materials, explanations were furnished by assessee before the AO - tribunal returned a finding of fact that there is no corroborative/direct evidence to presume that the notings had materialised into transactions giving rise to income not disclosed in the regular books of accounts - additions not justified – there is no perversity in tribunal’s findings - no question of law arise Issues:1. Appeal against deletion of addition made on account of entries recorded in seized diaries.2. Interpretation of entries in seized diaries and burden of proof on revenue.3. Validity of findings by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.4. Determination of tax liability based on proven income.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs 7,53,55,000 made based on entries in two diaries seized during a search conducted on the assessee's premises. The revenue contended that the diaries were not adequately explained and should be considered as inculpatory evidence.2. The diaries seized contained various notings, appointments, and reminders related to the business activities of the assessee. The tribunal noted that the entries were reconciled with the accounts seized during the search and found that the notings were in lakhs of rupees. The assessee provided explanations for each item queried by the Assessing Officer, clarifying that the entries were related to discussions and not actual transactions.3. The tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 132(4A) of the Income-tax Act, which allows for presumptions in certain situations. However, the tribunal concluded that the revenue failed to prove that the entries in the diaries translated into undisclosed income. The burden of proof shifted to the revenue to demonstrate that the explanations provided by the assessee were incorrect, which they could not establish.4. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and determined that the assessee was liable for tax only on proven income. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision as it was supported by valid evidence presented during assessment proceedings. The court affirmed that the findings were factual and not perverse, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the issues raised were factual, and the tribunal's findings were based on valid evidence. The burden of proof rested on the revenue to demonstrate undisclosed income, which they failed to do. The court upheld the decision that tax liability should be based on proven income, as determined by the Commissioner and the tribunal.