2020 (3) TMI 692 - HC - Income Tax

Undisclosed cash transactions u/s153A: assessment struck down for lack of supporting evidence and proper investigation

In an assessment under s.153A concerning alleged undisclosed cash transactions, the dominant issue was whether the Revenue had produced cogent material ... Assessment u/s 153A - undisclosed cash transactions -HELD THAT:- Revenue has not been able to produce any cogent material which could fasten the liability on the respondent. The CIT(A) has also examined the assessment record and has observed that the AO did not make any further inquiry/investigation on the information passed on by the DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi. No attempt or effort was made to gather or corroborate evidence in this relation. In these facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal as no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Issues:1. Appeal against ITAT order on assessment year 2002-03 under Income Tax Act.2. Allegations of undisclosed cash transactions and unaccounted income.3. Assessment based on seized documents and statements recorded during search.4. Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order deleting addition made by AO.5. Argument on reliance on previous ITAT decisions.6. Failure to produce subsequent order by Revenue.7. Dismissal of appeal due to lack of substantial question of law.Issue 1:The appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in relation to the assessment year 2002-03. The Revenue contested the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)).Issue 2:The case involved allegations of undisclosed cash transactions and unaccounted income arising from a search and seizure operation conducted in connection with a group engaged in 'hundi' business. The search revealed that undisclosed money was arranged from various parties, including the respondent, and advanced for undisclosed interest income. The group acted as mediators in these financial transactions.Issue 3:The assessment was based on seized documents and statements recorded during the search. The documents contained coded entries related to the 'hundi' business, decoded by the group's accountant. The respondent's involvement was established through these entries and statements, leading to the assessment of undisclosed income.Issue 4:The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) order deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A) order, citing previous decisions in similar cases. The Revenue argued that the reliance on these decisions was erroneous, as the respondent's cash advances were recorded in seized documents, forming part of regular business records.Issue 5:The Revenue failed to produce a subsequent order despite court directions, leading to a delay in the proceedings. The lack of compliance raised concerns about the Revenue's case presentation and procedural adherence.Issue 6:The respondent highlighted the dismissal of a similar appeal against Mahabir Prasad Gupta, emphasizing the lack of sustainable material for reassessment. The ITAT found the respondent's case aligned with previous decisions, where the Revenue failed to establish a link between the seized information and the respondent.Issue 7:The Court dismissed the present appeal, noting the absence of any substantial question of law. The decision was based on the lack of cogent material to support the Revenue's case and the failure to conduct further investigation based on the information provided.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.