ITAT deletes on-money addition on flat sales for AY 2017-18, rejects loose paper extrapolation, untested statements

ITAT Pune allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the addition for AY 2017-18 made on account of alleged on-money from sale of flats/shops. The Tribunal held that extrapolation based solely on loose papers and an employee's statement was unjustified, particularly as the employee joined after the relevant period and no author of the diary or any buyers, though identifiable, were examined. Unlike the HC decision in Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd., the assessee here consistently denied receiving on-money and the revenue failed to corroborate the seized material as required by SC in Pooran Mal. ITAT also noted that similar additions were deleted in the case of the joint venture partner.

---

---

The legal judgment involves three appeals filed by an assessee, a firm engaged in real estate, against the order of the CIT(A), Pune, concerning the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The core issue revolves around the addition of "on-money" received by the assessee, which was not recorded in the books of accounts.

Issues Presented and Considered

The primary legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the addition of "on-money" received by the assessee, as determined by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A), is justified. The Tribunal examined whether the evidence and statements gathered during the search and survey operations could substantiate such additions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case involves provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly sections 132, 133A, and 153A, concerning search and seizure operations, assessment of undisclosed income, and the evidentiary value of statements and documents obtained during such operations. The Tribunal also considered precedents relating to the evidentiary value of statements recorded under section 133A and the use of loose papers or documents as evidence.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal scrutinized the evidentiary value of the documents and statements obtained during the search. It noted that statements recorded under section 133A do not hold evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for additions unless corroborated by other evidence. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's reliance on loose papers and statements from employees without corroborative evidence was insufficient to justify the additions.

Key Evidence and Findings: The AO had based the additions on statements from sales managers and loose papers indicating the receipt of on-money. However, the Tribunal observed that the managing partner of the assessee firm was not questioned about these statements, and no corroborative evidence was presented to link the alleged on-money to the assessee's accounts. Additionally, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the names of buyers and the actual transactions, further weakening the AO's case.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied legal principles regarding the admissibility and corroboration of evidence obtained during search operations. It highlighted the need for concrete evidence to substantiate claims of undisclosed income and criticized the AO's reliance on assumptions and extrapolations without solid evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the assessee's arguments that the statements and documents were unreliable and that no concrete evidence linked the alleged on-money to the assessee's accounts. The Tribunal also reviewed the CIT(A)'s decision in a related case involving the assessee's joint venture partner, where similar additions were deleted due to a lack of evidence.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. It emphasized that extrapolation of on-money without concrete evidence was unjustified.

Significant Holdings

The Tribunal held that the statements recorded under section 133A have no evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidence. It reiterated the principle that loose papers and documents without corroboration cannot be the basis for additions. The Tribunal also emphasized that extrapolation of on-money without evidence is not permissible.

Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that statements recorded during surveys have limited evidentiary value and must be corroborated. It also highlighted the need for concrete evidence when making additions based on alleged undisclosed income.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, deleting the additions made by the AO for the assessment years in question. It concluded that the additions were based on assumptions and lacked the necessary evidentiary support.

---