2025 (1) TMI 1281 - AT - Income Tax

Diary entries from third party premises cannot incriminate company without irrefutable evidence under section 153A

Colourful Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT Central Circle-1 Gurgaon

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee company in an assessment under section 153A. The tribunal held that diary entries seized from a third party's ... Assessment u/s 153A - entries found recorded in the diary seized from the residential premises of Third party - HELD THAT:- The entries found recorded in the diary seized from the residential premises of RKY is not capable of incriminating the assessee company per se. Additions made qua such entries thus are not justified within sweep of s. 153A of the Act. On merits also, the impugned addition is not justified in the absence of any culpability established against the assessee company by some irrefutable evidence as noted above. Revenue has failed to tie the contents of impugned entries discovered from third person with that of assessee co. The statutory presumption is thus not available in the instant case. The onus thus continues to lie at the doorstep of Revenue that the transactions/ entries were consummated by the assessee indeed. Such onus has not been discharged at all. The allegation leveled against the assessee co. is in the realm of bald. Coupled with this, simultaneous addition based on such entries in the hands of other entity militates against action of the revenue and erodes the very foundation of the impugned additions. Substantial merit in the plea of the assessee on both counts namely lack of jurisdiction u/s 153A for making impugned additions dehors any incriminating material as well as additions being devoid of any merit in the absence of any credible corroboration that such entries unflinchingly relates to the assessee company in exclusion to other entities. Decided in favour of assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Tribunal considered several core legal issues in these appeals:1. Whether the assessment orders under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were valid given that no search action under Section 132 was conducted at the premises of the appellant company.2. The legitimacy of additions made to the income of the assessee based on documents seized from a third party's premises, specifically whether such additions can be sustained under Section 153A when the assessments were concluded and no incriminating material was found during the search.3. The appropriateness of sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,05,50,000/- and Rs. 2,40,37,564/- for the respective assessment years based on the seized documents, considering the argument that similar additions were made in the hands of another entity, Antriksh Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Validity of Assessment Orders under Section 153AThe Tribunal examined whether the assessment orders were valid given the claim that no search under Section 132 was conducted at the appellant company's premises. The Tribunal noted that a search warrant and Panchnama were indeed issued in the name of the assessee company. However, the Tribunal found that the actual search was conducted at the premises of a third party, and no incriminating material was found directly linked to the assessee company. The Tribunal referenced the legal framework established in CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which restricts additions under Section 153A in concluded assessments without incriminating material.2. Legitimacy of Additions Based on Third-Party DocumentsThe Tribunal scrutinized the additions made based on documents seized from the premises of Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, a director in both the assessee company and Antriksh Developers. The Tribunal emphasized that the seized documents did not explicitly relate to the assessee company, as the entries were ambiguous and did not mention the assessee company or its projects. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking the entries to the assessee company and the absence of any adverse statements under Section 132(4) implicating the assessee.The Tribunal found that the primary onus was on the Revenue to establish a connection between the seized documents and the assessee company, which the Revenue failed to do. The Tribunal also noted that similar additions were made in the hands of Antriksh Developers, which further undermined the legitimacy of the additions in the assessee's case.3. Sustaining Additions in Light of Double AdditionsThe Tribunal addressed the issue of sustaining additions when similar amounts were added to the income of Antriksh Developers based on the same documents. The Tribunal found this approach contradictory and unjustified, as it resulted in double substantive additions for the same entries in different entities' hands. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's action lacked legal and factual foundation.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A were not justified due to the lack of incriminating material directly linked to the assessee company. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C were not applicable, as the documents were not found from the assessee company's premises. The Tribunal also highlighted the need for the Revenue to discharge its onus of proving the connection between the seized documents and the assessee company, which was not fulfilled.The Tribunal concluded that the additions made based on the seized documents were speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the additions made by the Revenue.