High Court emphasizes strict proof in tax assessment, deletes Rs.48 lakhs as undisclosed income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GIRISH CHAUDHARY

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GIRISH CHAUDHARY - [2008] 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition of Rs.48 lakhs as undisclosed income based on seized material during block assessment period 1990-91 to 2000.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of an addition of Rs.48 lakhs as undisclosed income by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had deleted the said addition. The crux of the matter revolved around a document marked as Annexure A-37 found during a search operation, containing certain cash entries. The Assessing Officer presumed these entries as undisclosed income, which the assessee failed to explain. However, the Tribunal, in its decision, emphasized the need for strict proof beyond reasonable doubt to establish undisclosed income. It highlighted discrepancies in the assessment order, questioning the basis for concluding the figure of "48" as Rs.48 lakhs. The Tribunal found the seized document to be inconclusive and rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

In the legal analysis, the judgment delves into the provisions of Section 158B of the Income Tax Act, which defines "undisclosed income" for block assessment purposes. It clarifies that only income found as a result of a search can be considered undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B. The Assessing Officer must provide material to demonstrate the existence of undisclosed income represented by credits in the books of accounts before making any addition. In the absence of such material in the present case, the High Court found no basis for the Assessing Officer's conclusion regarding the undisclosed income of Rs.48 lakhs.

Moreover, the judgment references a Supreme Court ruling stating that loose sheets of papers are not considered 'books,' rendering entries therein inadmissible under the Evidence Act. Similarly, the document Annexure A-37 in this case was deemed inconclusive, leading to the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition of Rs.48 lakhs. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that it did not raise any substantial question of law warranting further appeal under Section 260-A of the Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's deletion of the addition of Rs.48 lakhs as undisclosed income based on the seized material.