Tribunal Overturns Addition of Rs. 3.25 Crores Due to Insufficient Evidence, Allows Assessee's Appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order, deeming the addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, unjustified due to insufficient evidence. It found the retracted statement and diary entries inadequate to substantiate the claims. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, deleting the contested addition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on information received, addition of income under section 69A of the Act, denial of opportunity for cross-examination, and the validity of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Reopening of Assessment:
The Assessee, a sole proprietor of a retail business, had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13, showing total income of Rs. 5,05,980/-. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information received regarding cash lending activities of the Assessee, which had allegedly escaped assessment. The Assessee denied lending any cash loan as claimed and requested cross-examination of the involved parties.

Addition of Income under Section 69A:
The Assessing Officer, relying on a statement by a third party and entries in a seized diary, made an addition of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act, along with an additional amount for alleged interest. The Assessee contested these additions, challenging the credibility of the evidence presented.

Denial of Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
The Assessing Officer did not allow the Assessee's request for cross-examination of the third party involved in the case. The Assessee argued that the third party's retracted statement should not be considered as substantive evidence, especially since it did not specifically connect the Assessee to the alleged transactions.

Validity of Additions Made:
Upon careful review of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal found that the retracted statement and the entries in the seized diary were not substantial evidence to support the additions made by the authorities. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in connecting the Assessee to the alleged transactions and concluded that the additions were not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal and deleted the addition under consideration.

Separate Judgment Delivered:
The Tribunal, comprising SHRI. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MISS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), pronounced the order on 31/01/2024, setting aside the unreasonable order passed by the lower authorities and deleting the addition made under section 69A of the Act, thereby allowing the Assessee's appeal.

---