2025 (11) TMI 1932 - AT - Income Tax

Third-party seized documents and alleged unaccounted purchases: additions deleted for no nexus, no rebuttal chance, no s.145(3) rejection.

Additions based solely on seized documents found with a third party were held unsustainable because the AO neither furnished the material to the assessee ... Addition made solely on the basis of information emanating from seized documents found in the case of third party - nexus between the assessee and the seized material - estimation of income - HELD THAT:- As undisputed that the said documents were not seized from the assessee’s premises and were never provided to the assessee for rebuttal. The law is well settled that additions cannot be made on the basis of unverified third- party material. In ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar [1973 (6) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that tax authorities cannot make additions merely relying upon third-party documents or statements without independent corroboration. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence. In the present case, the AO did not establish any direct nexus between the assessee and the seized material. Assessee categorically denied having any business transaction with M/s J.M. Jain LLP and produced purchase bills and confirmations from other regular suppliers. The AO did not disprove the genuineness of such records. As rightly contended, the AO did not invoke section 145(3) to reject the books of account. As decided in Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd [2024 (3) TMI 156 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has clearly held that estimation of income is permissible only after rejection of books of account on valid grounds. In the absence of such rejection, the AO’s estimation of 8% on alleged unaccounted purchases is legally unsustainable. Addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not supported by any tangible material, is based on mere suspicion and third-party information and cannot be sustained in law. Considering all, we hold that the AO was not justified in making an addition without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3), furnishing seized materials to the assessee and (establishing any nexus between the assessee and the alleged unaccounted purchases. Assessee appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether an addition based solely on seized documents found during a search at a third party's premises could be sustained when the material was neither furnished to the assessee for rebuttal nor independently corroborated by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether estimation of income at a fixed percentage of alleged unaccounted purchases was legally sustainable when the Assessing Officer did not reject the assessee's books of account under section 145(3). (iii) Whether the presumption as to ownership/contents of documents under section 292C could be applied where the documents relied upon were found in possession of a third party and not from the assessee's premises. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Reliance on third-party seized material without furnishing it and without corroboration Legal framework: The Court applied the requirement of adherence to principles of natural justice in income-tax proceedings, including the obligation to provide the assessee an opportunity to controvert material relied upon against it. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the impugned addition was made solely on the basis of entries in a seized ledger recovered from a third party during a search. It was undisputed that the seized material was not recovered from the assessee's premises and was never supplied to the assessee for rebuttal. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer did not establish any direct nexus between the assessee and the seized ledger entries and did not disprove the genuineness of the assessee's regular purchase records and confirmations produced from its suppliers. The failure to furnish the relied-upon seized material was treated as a violation of natural justice because the assessee was deprived of an effective opportunity to controvert the material used against it. Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained because it rested on unverified third-party material, without furnishing the material to the assessee and without independent corroboration or proof of linkage with the assessee. Issue (ii): Estimation of income without rejection of books under section 145(3) Legal framework: The Court applied the principle that estimation of income is permissible only after the Assessing Officer records dissatisfaction about the correctness/completeness of accounts and rejects the books under section 145(3). Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition by estimating profit at 8% of alleged unaccounted purchases, yet did not invoke section 145(3) or record any finding rejecting the books of account. The Court treated this omission as fatal to the estimation approach, particularly where the assessee had maintained regular books and produced documentary support for recorded purchases, and the Assessing Officer neither rejected those books nor demonstrated defects warranting estimation. Conclusion: The estimation of 8% on alleged purchases was held legally unsustainable in the absence of rejection of books of account under section 145(3). Issue (iii): Inapplicability of section 292C presumption to documents found with a third party Legal framework: The Court considered section 292C and applied it as creating a rebuttable presumption of ownership/contents only where documents are found in the possession of the assessee or its authorised agent. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the seized ledger was recovered from the premises of a third party and had not been authenticated or proved to belong to the assessee. Since the documents were not found in the assessee's possession, the Court held that the presumption under section 292C could not be invoked to attribute ownership or correctness of the entries to the assessee. Conclusion: No presumption under section 292C was available to support the addition because the documents were found with a third party and were not established to belong to the assessee. Final determination: On cumulative findings-violation of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon material, absence of corroboration/nexus with the assessee, impermissible estimation without rejecting books under section 145(3), and inapplicability of section 292C-the Court deleted the addition of Rs. 61,49,041/-.