ITAT overturns deletion of unexplained investment, directs AO for proper verification

The ITAT set aside the lower authorities' orders regarding the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000 as unexplained investment, as the AO had not conducted proper verification and made assumptions without corroborative evidence. The document forming the basis of the addition was not found in the assessee's premises, rendering the addition beyond the AO's jurisdiction. The presumption under section 132(4A) was deemed inapplicable. The ITAT directed the AO to reassess the issues, granting the assessee a fair opportunity. The Revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- as unexplained investment by the CIT (A).
2. Jurisdiction of the AO to make additions based on documents not found in the assessee's premises.
3. Applicability of the presumption under section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- as Unexplained Investment:
The primary issue in the appeal is the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,09,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment. The AO based this addition on a document seized from premises 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, which he believed related to the purchase of a property by the assessee. The AO inferred that the property transaction was executed for Rs. 2,60,00,000/-, with Rs. 49,50,000/- paid by cheque and the balance Rs. 2,09,50,000/- in cash, which was treated as unexplained investment. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, holding that the AO had not brought any corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation and had made assumptions without proper investigation or verification from the alleged seller.

2. Jurisdiction of the AO to Make Additions Based on Documents Not Found in the Assessee's Premises:
The assessee contended that the addition was unsustainable as the document was not found during the search in the assessee's premises. The search on the assessee was conducted at B-1/118, IInd Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, and the seized document was from a different location. The CIT (A) initially rejected the legal contention but deleted the addition on factual grounds. The ITAT noted that the AO had drawn adverse inferences without proper verification and that the document was not found in the possession or control of the assessee. Hence, the addition based on such a document was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO.

3. Applicability of the Presumption under Section 132(4A) Read with Section 292C:
The Revenue argued that the presumption under section 132(4A) read with section 292C was applicable, which assumes that the document belongs to the person from whose possession it was found and that its contents are correct. However, the assessee countered that this presumption was not applicable since the document was not found in the possession or control of the assessee. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, stating that the presumption under section 132(4A) could not be applied as the document was found at a different location and not during the search on the assessee. Therefore, the addition based on this document was not justified.

Conclusion:
The ITAT concluded that the AO had not conducted necessary verification and had made additions based on assumptions. The document was not found in the possession of the assessee, and the presumption under section 132(4A) was not applicable. The ITAT set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to re-examine the issues, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity before passing a fresh assessment order. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

---