2025 (1) TMI 1283 - AT - Income Tax

Section 69A additions upheld for unexplained diary entries found during search despite incorrect citation arguments

Shri Sai Om Infravision (P) Ltd., Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Private Limited Versus DCIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi

ITAT Delhi upheld additions under section 69A based on unexplained items found in diary during search proceedings. The AO initially made additions for all ... Addition u/s. 69A - reliance on dumb documents found during the course of search - HELD THAT:- AO has made the additions on all the items found during search from the diary, but CIT(A) has restricted the additions to those entries only which were reflected in the books of accounts. In our considered opinion, the ld. Counsel’s submissions that wrong section is mentioned is not fatal over here, as additions have been made on account of unexplained items found during the course of search from the diary. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Vivek [2020 (11) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has duly held that loose sheets picked u/s 132, falls within definition of ‘document’ mentioned in section 132(4) and therefore, it has got evidentiary value. The decisions referred by assessee has no bearing on the present facts of the case. Decided against assessee. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment were:Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on notings in a seized diary during a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act were justified.Whether the additions sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] were appropriate, given the nature of the evidence and the legal provisions applied.Whether the application of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act for the additions was correct.Whether the documents termed as 'dumb documents' had any evidentiary value.Whether mentioning the wrong section by the AO was fatal to the validity of the additions.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Justification of Additions by the AO:The AO made additions based on entries in a seized diary found during a search at the premises of Kaushalya Residency Girls Hostel, GNHIPL. The diary contained notings that were not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessees, Shri Sai Om Infravision (P) Ltd. and Shri Om Sai Infrapromoters Pvt. Ltd. The AO considered these entries as unaccounted income.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The legal framework involved Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, which deals with assessments in cases where a search is initiated. The AO also invoked Section 69A, which pertains to unexplained money, bullion, or other valuable articles.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had extensively analyzed the documents and found that only certain entries were not reflected in the books of accounts. The CIT(A) granted substantial relief by deleting most of the additions made by the AO, sustaining only those that were clearly unaccounted for.Key Evidence and Findings:The primary evidence was the seized diary, which contained entries of transactions not recorded in the official accounts of the companies involved. The CIT(A) found that these entries were indicative of unaccounted income and distributed the unaccounted receipts equally between the two companies.Application of Law to Facts:The CIT(A) applied Section 69A to the unaccounted income and sustained additions only for amounts that were not reflected in the books. The Tribunal found this approach reasonable and consistent with the evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The assessee argued that the documents were 'dumb' and lacked evidentiary value. They also contended that the wrong section was applied. The Tribunal, however, found that the documents had evidentiary value, as supported by the precedent from the Madras High Court, and that the mention of a wrong section was not fatal to the additions.Conclusions:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming the sustained additions as reasonable and dismissing the appeals by the assessees.2. Evidentiary Value of 'Dumb Documents':The assessee claimed that the documents found during the search were 'dumb' and had no evidentiary value.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in M. Vivek vs. DCIT, which held that loose sheets found during a search have evidentiary value under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal found that the documents in question did have evidentiary value, as they were part of the search operation and fell within the definition of 'document' under Section 132(4).Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) correctly considered the evidentiary value of the documents in sustaining the additions.3. Application of Section 69A:The assessee argued that Section 69A was incorrectly applied, as the amounts in question were business receipts and not unexplained money.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:Section 69A pertains to unexplained money, bullion, or other valuable articles found in possession of the assessee.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) appropriately applied Section 69A, as the amounts were not reflected in the books of accounts and were therefore considered unexplained.Conclusions:The Tribunal upheld the application of Section 69A for the sustained additions.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established:Documents found during a search operation have evidentiary value under Section 132(4) and can be used to justify additions if they indicate unaccounted income.The application of a wrong section by the AO is not fatal if the substantive basis for the addition is valid.Section 69A can be applied to amounts not reflected in the books of accounts, considering them as unexplained income.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, sustaining only those additions that were supported by evidence and dismissing the appeals by the assessees.The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that the documents were 'dumb' and lacked evidentiary value, supporting the CIT(A)'s reliance on them.The Tribunal upheld the application of Section 69A, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s assessment of unaccounted income.