2025 (4) TMI 260 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds unexplained investment additions under Section 69, rejecting criminal court defense arguments

Shri Habibullah Abbasali Chaudhary Versus The DCIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Maharashtra And (Vice-Versa)

The ITAT Pune upheld unexplained investment additions under section 69 against the assessee, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The tribunal rejected the ... Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 69 as unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- We wish to make it clear that the learned CIT(A) has gone by the developments in a criminal case decided by learned 16th First Class Magistrate, Pune quashing and FIR/prosecution and holds that non-compliance thereof amount to discriminatory treatment herein violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. We fail to see any substance in the learned CIT(A)’s foregoing reasoning once it is clear that the impugned addition is indeed not only based on the seized incriminating material having attained finality as per this tribunal’s first round findings (supra), but also such evidence collected during a search carries presumption of correctness u/s 292C of the Act. So far as the assessee’s reliance on some developments in learned criminal court’s proceedings is concerned, we are of the considered view in light of GTC Industries Limited [2017 (4) TMI 344 - ITAT MUMBAI] that the proceedings under the provisions of the Act are governed by the theory of preponderance of probability than governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act applicable in a criminal court wherein the prosecution is supposed to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt. AO’s specific findings had discussed all the relevant facts whilst retreating the impugned addition and therefore, the mere fact that there is some other similarly placed assessee whose facts are neither here nor there discussed as per section 250(6) of the Act; would not form the sole reason for granting relief to the assessee/respondent herein. We thus reject learned counsel’s vehement contentions that we must follow the findings in the criminal court so as to delete the impugned addition since the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 are in the nature of a complete code in itself and therefore, section 292C herein presuming the contents of the seized documents in a search to be correct which have nowhere been rebutted; seal the fate of the assessee’s contentions in very terms. Assessee has nowhere been granted an opportunity to crossexamine the concerned loan recipients which violates principles of natural justice - We again see no substance in assessee’s instant technical argument as the impugned addition is indeed based on the incriminating material only which has already been decided in departments favour by this tribunal. Rejected accordingly. CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings reversing the Assessing Officer’s action herein making section 69 unexplained investment(s) vis-à-vis interest income addition(s) (supra), are not sustainable in law. The impugned addition(s) involving varying sum(s) in both assessment years in assessee’s hands stand upheld in very terms therefore. Decided in favour of revenue. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the unexplained loans and interest income added by the Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were justified.The applicability of the tribunal's remand directions in the context of the unexplained loans and interest income.The impact of the criminal court's findings on the tax assessment proceedings, particularly concerning the principle of non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The procedural fairness regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of loan recipients.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISUnexplained Loans and Interest IncomeRelevant legal framework and precedents: The case revolves around the application of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained investments. The legal framework allows the tax authorities to treat unexplained investments as income if the taxpayer cannot satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the investment.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal examined whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were supported by incriminating material found during the search operations. The tribunal concluded that the material seized during the search was indeed incriminating and justified the additions.Key evidence and findings: The evidence included statements and documents indicating that the assessee had given substantial cash loans to Shri Chetan Mehta and received interest thereon. The tribunal noted that the documents and statements were sufficient to establish the transactions.Application of law to facts: The tribunal applied Section 69 to the facts, affirming that the unexplained investments and interest income should be treated as the assessee's income since the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the transactions.Treatment of competing arguments: The tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the criminal court's findings should influence the tax proceedings, emphasizing that tax proceedings are governed by the preponderance of probability rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Conclusions: The tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, concluding that the evidence supported the findings of unexplained loans and interest income.Tribunal's Remand DirectionsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The tribunal's remand directions required the Assessing Officer to reconsider the additions in light of new evidence, particularly the criminal court's findings.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal found that the remand directions were not adequately addressed by the CIT(A), who failed to consider the incriminating nature of the seized material.Key evidence and findings: The tribunal noted that the seized documents were incriminating and had not been adequately rebutted by the assessee.Application of law to facts: The tribunal applied its earlier remand directions and concluded that the CIT(A) erred in reversing the Assessing Officer's findings without proper consideration of the evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The tribunal dismissed the argument that the remand directions were not properly followed, emphasizing the incriminating nature of the evidence.Conclusions: The tribunal reinstated the Assessing Officer's additions, finding that the remand directions had not been properly implemented.Impact of Criminal Court's FindingsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The tribunal considered the relevance of the criminal court's findings, particularly in light of Article 14 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal held that the criminal court's findings were not directly relevant to the tax proceedings, which are governed by different standards and principles.Key evidence and findings: The tribunal noted that the criminal court's decision focused on the legality of recovery methods rather than the existence of the loans themselves.Application of law to facts: The tribunal applied the principle that tax proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act.Treatment of competing arguments: The tribunal rejected the argument that the criminal court's findings should negate the tax additions, emphasizing the different legal standards applicable.Conclusions: The tribunal concluded that the criminal court's findings did not affect the validity of the tax additions.Procedural Fairness and Cross-ExaminationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The tribunal considered the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The tribunal found that the lack of cross-examination did not violate natural justice principles, given the incriminating nature of the evidence.Key evidence and findings: The tribunal noted that the evidence was sufficient to support the additions without the need for cross-examination.Application of law to facts: The tribunal applied the principle that the right to cross-examine is not absolute and can be limited in cases involving sufficient documentary evidence.Treatment of competing arguments: The tribunal dismissed the argument that the lack of cross-examination violated natural justice, emphasizing the strength of the documentary evidence.Conclusions: The tribunal concluded that the procedural fairness was not compromised, and the additions were justified.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer, emphasizing the incriminating nature of the seized evidence and the presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal rejected the relevance of the criminal court's findings in the tax proceedings, emphasizing the different standards of proof applicable. The tribunal also dismissed procedural fairness arguments, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to justify the additions.Significant verbatim quote: 'We fail to see any substance in the learned CIT(A)'s foregoing reasoning once it is clear that the impugned addition is indeed not only based on the seized incriminating material having attained finality as per this tribunal's first round findings (supra), but also such evidence collected during a search carries presumption of correctness under section 292C of the Act.'Core principles established include the independence of tax proceedings from criminal proceedings, the presumption of correctness of seized evidence, and the limited scope of procedural fairness in cases involving sufficient documentary evidence.