ITAT deletes additions under sections 69A and 153A, rules search-based assessments require incriminating material from search proceedings only

The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions made under sections 69A and 153A. The tribunal held that additions under section 153A for unabated assessments can only be based on incriminating material found during search proceedings under section 132. The AO's reliance on information obtained from Lokayukta under section 133(6) after the search was impermissible, as this constituted "other information" not seized during search. Regarding diary entries, the tribunal ruled that loose papers without corroborative evidence cannot support additions, especially when authorship is unknown and the assessee denies knowledge. For jewellery additions under section 69A, no unexplained investment was established for the relevant assessment year.

---

---

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered in the appeals for Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 to 2016-17 primarily relate to:

• The legality and validity of the search conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961;
• The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass assessment orders under section 153A, especially in the absence of incriminating material found during the search for completed/unabated assessment years;
• The validity of notice issuance and jurisdictional compliance, including the absence of notice under section 129 and approval under section 153D;
• Whether the assessment orders violated principles of natural justice due to inadequate opportunity of hearing or non-disclosure of seized materials;
• The correctness and legality of additions made on account of unexplained investments in jewellery under section 69A of the Act;
• The admissibility and evidentiary value of seized materials, particularly diaries and loose sheets marked as A/KG/3 and A/KG/9, relied upon for making additions as undisclosed income;
• The applicability and scope of statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act concerning ownership and contents of seized documents;
• The treatment of protective assessments in the absence of substantive assessments;
• Whether additions based on alleged planted or interpolated diary entries are sustainable without a fair investigation or corroborative evidence;
• Whether the manner of quantification of additions and levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is proper and justified.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

1. Legality and Validity of Search under Section 132

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 132 empowers authorities to conduct search and seizure based on "reason to believe" which, per the Explanation inserted by Finance Act 2017 (retrospective from 1962), is not required to be disclosed to any person or authority including the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of section 132 and held that the reason for search need not be disclosed (Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection). The Tribunal cannot adjudicate the legality of search proceedings; such challenge is maintainable only by writ petition before the High Court.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal affirmed that the appellant's challenge to the validity of the search is not maintainable before it. The appellant's contention that the search was based on suspicion without prior information was rejected based on the statutory bar on disclosure of "reason to believe." The appellant's failure to challenge the search through writ petition forfeited his right to question the search validity later.

Application of Law to Facts: The search conducted on 15.03.2016 was held valid and legal. The Tribunal relied on binding Supreme Court precedents and relevant High Court rulings to dismiss the ground.

Conclusion: The challenge to the legality and validity of search under section 132 was dismissed.

2. Jurisdiction to Pass Assessment under Section 153A in Absence of Incriminating Material

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153A applies to assessments where a search is conducted. However, for completed or unabated assessments, the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. held that no addition can be made under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during search. The AO's jurisdiction to reopen such assessments is limited to section 147/148 subject to conditions.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: For AY 2013-14, the affidavit found during search (A/KG/10) declaring nil jewellery was not incriminating by itself. The information obtained later from Lokayukta under section 133(6) was not found or seized during the search and thus constituted "other information" not empowering the AO to assess under section 153A for that year. The Tribunal held that additions for AY 2013-14 under section 153A were without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal distinguished between documents found during search and other information obtained later. It held that the AO could have reopened AY 2013-14 under section 147/148 but could not assess it under section 153A without incriminating seized material.

Conclusion: Additions for AY 2013-14 under section 153A were quashed for want of jurisdiction.

3. Validity of Notice under Section 129 and Approval under Section 153D

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 129 relates to change of incumbent of an income-tax authority and provides that the new incumbent may continue proceedings and the assessee may demand rehearing. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that objections to jurisdiction must be raised before the AO and failure to do so amounts to waiver. Section 153D requires approval of the Joint Commissioner for assessment under section 153A.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the appellant did not demand rehearing under section 129 and thus could not object to jurisdiction on that ground at a later stage. The AO had obtained valid approval under section 153D, and copies were on record. The Tribunal dismissed grounds challenging notice validity and approval.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal relied on case law holding that jurisdictional objections must be timely raised and found no procedural infirmity in issuance of notices or obtaining approvals.

Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were held valid with respect to notices under section 129 and approvals under section 153D.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given adequate opportunity to defend and be informed of the case against him. The Supreme Court has held that mere issuance of notices is not sufficient unless the assessee is made aware of the real case to defend.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that multiple notices were issued to the appellant and his representatives to produce information and appear for proceedings. The appellant failed to file power of attorney for his representatives. The AO confronted the appellant with seized materials during statements. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice.

Application of Law to Facts: The appellant's claim that he was not given opportunity or copies of seized materials was rejected as the record showed adequate opportunities and confrontation during statements.

Conclusion: Grounds alleging violation of natural justice were dismissed.

5. Additions Based on Seized Diaries and Loose Sheets (A/KG/3 and A/KG/9)

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in CBI v. V.C. Shukla and Common Cause v. UOI held that loose sheets, diaries, and non-regularly maintained books of account are not admissible evidence under section 34 of the Evidence Act and are "dumb documents" without evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence. The burden lies on the AO to establish corroboration and ownership. Entries in documents not in the assessee's handwriting or not admitted by him cannot be presumed to be his income without further proof. Section 292C provides presumptions but they are rebuttable and do not automatically convert notings into income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the diary A/KG/3 was not in the appellant's handwriting, the author was unknown, and the appellant denied ownership and knowledge of its contents. The loose sheets A/KG/9 were in the appellant's handwriting but were unintelligible and "dumb documents." The AO relied solely on these documents without independent corroboration such as statements from alleged parties or other evidence. The Tribunal held that additions based on these materials were not sustainable.

The Tribunal also noted that the entries in the diary were not contemporaneous but written at one time, spanning multiple years, reducing their reliability. The AO's narrative explaining the entries was speculative and imaginative.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from cited precedents and held that the AO failed to discharge the burden of proving these documents reflected undisclosed income of the appellant. The statutory presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C were rebutted by denial of ownership and lack of corroboration.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the diary entries were corroborated by handwriting in A/KG/9 and that the presumption under section 292C applied. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that one dumb document cannot corroborate another and that presumption does not extend to presumed income without proof. The Revenue's reliance on a prior Tribunal decision was distinguished on facts and superseded by High Court order allowing appeal on legal grounds.

Conclusion: Additions based on seized diary and loose sheets for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted.

6. Additions on Account of Unexplained Jewellery under Section 69A

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A applies when jewellery is found and owned by the assessee but not recorded in books of account and no satisfactory explanation is offered. Valuation for jewellery additions must be based on a valuation report from a Valuation Officer under Section 12A of the Wealth Tax Act. Additions cannot be made on jewellery not physically found or where declared jewellery includes ancestral jewellery not owned by the assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that no jewellery in excess was physically found during search; rather, the addition was based on difference between jewellery declared before Lokayukta and jewellery found. The appellant explained that the higher declared jewellery included ancestral family jewellery and filed revised returns accepted by Lokayukta. The Tribunal held that section 69A does not apply to jewellery not physically found and that additions based on excess declared jewellery over physically found jewellery were not sustainable.

The Tribunal also held that valuation adopted by AO was not based on a valid valuation report under Section 12A and was thus improper.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation of ancestral jewellery and revised returns and found no unexplained investment in jewellery for AY 2016-17.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the difference represented unexplained investment and relied on statutory presumptions. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the absence of physical jewellery and proper valuation.

Conclusion: Additions under section 69A for unexplained jewellery for AY 2016-17 were deleted.

7. Protective Assessments in Absence of Substantive Assessments

Legal Framework and Precedents: Protective assessments cannot be sustained in the absence of substantive assessments. ITAT decisions have held that protective assessments are contingent on substantive assessments.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that protective additions made in the appellant's hands in absence of substantive additions in the spouse's hands were bad in law and liable to be deleted.

Application of Law to Facts: Protective additions of jewellery in appellant's hands without substantive assessment in spouse's hands were deleted.

8. Levy of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C

The Tribunal noted that the quantum, period, and rate of interest levied were not clearly discernible from the assessment orders and the CIT(A) merely held the interest as consequential without specific adjudication. The Tribunal kept these grounds open as the substantive additions were deleted.

Significant Holdings

"The reason to believe as recorded by the Income tax authority under section 132(1) shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal." This statutory bar precludes adjudication of search validity before the Tribunal.

"In case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed/unabated assessments." (PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.)

"Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as 'book' for they can be easily detached and replaced... Entries in loose papers/sheets are not relevant and not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act." (CBI v. V.C. Shukla; Common Cause v. UOI)

"Additions cannot be made merely on the basis of notings on loose sheets which are dumb documents having no evidentiary value. The onus lies on the Department to collect corroborative evidence." (Multiple ITAT decisions including Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust)

"Protective assessment cannot be made without substantive assessment." (ITO v. M/s Fussy Financial Services Pvt Ltd; Suresh K Jajoo v. ACIT)

"Valuation for jewellery additions must be based on a valuation report furnished by a Valuation Officer appointed under Section 12A of the Wealth Tax Act." (V. Selvaraj vs DCIT)

Final Determinations:

• The search under section 132 was valid and legal; challenge dismissed.
• Assessment for AY 2013-14 under section 153A was without jurisdiction due to absence of incriminating seized material; additions deleted.
• Notices under section 129 and approvals under section 153D were valid; jurisdictional objections dismissed.
• No violation of natural justice found; adequate opportunity given.
• Additions based on seized diaries and loose sheets (A/KG/3 and A/KG/9) for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were deleted due to lack of corroborative evidence and dumb document status.
• Additions under section 69A for unexplained jewellery for AY 2016-17 were deleted as no unexplained jewellery was physically found and valuation was improper.
• Protective assessments without substantive assessments were deleted.
• Revenue appeals against deletion of additions based on diary entries and jewellery were dismissed.

---