Builder's cash receipt addition under section 69A deleted due to insufficient evidence from survey documents

ITAT Mumbai allowed assessee's appeal against addition under section 69A for alleged cash receipts from flat buyers. The addition was based on documents seized during survey operations and statements from accountant under section 133A, which lack evidentiary value. The Tribunal found the evidence insufficient as dates in documents didn't match actual allotment/registration dates, and entries lacked material facts like payment mode, dates, and parties involved. Following precedent in Anil Jaggi case, the Tribunal held that builder's records alone cannot establish buyer's cash payment when purchase consideration matches market rates without corroborating evidence. The addition was deleted.

---

---

Issues:
Validity of reopening of assessment, Addition of undisclosed income u/s. 69A of the Act.

Validity of Reopening of Assessment:
The appellant challenged the order dated 11/12/2023 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2013-14. The Ld.A.R did not press the grounds regarding the validity of reopening of assessment, leading to their dismissal. The remaining ground pertained to the addition of Rs. 1.61 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 69A of the Act.

Addition of Undisclosed Income:
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information received during survey operations in the hands of a builder company. The documents seized indicated cash receipts of Rs. 1.61 crores against flat numbers purchased by the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on statements from the company's Accountant and Director confirming the cash receipts. The assessee disputed the entries, stating the flats were allotted in 2011, payments were made by cheque, and registration occurred in 2016-17. The Assessing Officer, without further corroboration, assessed the amount as undisclosed income u/s. 69A. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidentiary value of the statements taken u/s. 133A and discrepancies in the document's entries. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal emphasized the need for conclusive evidence and set aside the addition, directing its deletion.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the addition unsustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence and discrepancies in the document's entries. The order passed by Ld CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs. 1.61 crores. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---