Revenue's appeal dismissed as assessee denied cross-examination rights in section 69B addition for unexplained cash payments

ITAT Rajkot dismissed Revenue's appeal regarding additions under section 69B for unexplained cash payments towards land purchase. The assessee was denied cross-examination of the land seller and record keeper during assessment proceedings. The AO attempted to correlate an Agreement for Sale with excel sheets recovered from digital data, but the person maintaining records was not involved in preparing them. The Tribunal found no independent materials proving cash payment for land purchase. The assessee was not party to the disputed agreement dated 05.05.2011, and her husband became company director only in January 2014, after the agreement. The AO failed to refer the matter for land valuation. The Tribunal quashed the entire proceeding as void ab initio, finding the reopening was based on incorrect facts. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition based on alleged unexplained investment and on-money payment.
3. Validity of evidence and documents used for making additions.
4. Rights of the assessee to cross-examine witnesses and the principle of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147:
The reopening of assessment was challenged by various assessees on grounds of factual inaccuracies in the reasons recorded for reopening. For instance, in ITA No. 23/Rjt/2021, the assessee argued that the reasons recorded were factually incorrect as he was neither a seller nor a Director at the time of the disputed transaction. The Tribunal found that reopening based on incorrect facts does not stand, and thus, the entire proceeding was quashed.

2. Addition Based on Alleged Unexplained Investment and On-Money Payment:
The Revenue made additions on the basis of unexplained cash payments towards the purchase of land, alleging on-money payments. In ITA No. 22/Rjt/2021, the Tribunal noted that the primary document (agreement for sale) did not bear the signatures of the assessee or her husband, and the land was in a high flood and green zone, which justified the lower purchase price. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding no evidence of on-money payment.

3. Validity of Evidence and Documents Used for Making Additions:
The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence, such as excel sheets and valuation reports, which were impounded from third parties. In ITA No. 22/Rjt/2021, it was observed that the excel sheets did not conclusively prove cash payments, and the valuation reports did not account for the land's restrictions. The Tribunal emphasized that loose sheets and unsigned documents found with third parties cannot be used as conclusive evidence against the assessee without corroborative material.

4. Rights of the Assessee to Cross-Examine Witnesses and the Principle of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of allowing assessees to cross-examine witnesses. In several cases, including ITA No. 22/Rjt/2021, the Tribunal noted that the assessees were not allowed to cross-examine the sellers or Shri Jawahar Mori, whose statements were used against them. The Tribunal held that such denial violated the principles of natural justice, and thus, the additions made were not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and adherence to the principles of natural justice in making additions and reopening assessments.

---