2025 (6) TMI 74 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes additions under section 153A as statements without corroborative evidence insufficient for assessment

Mohan Garg Versus DCIT, Central Circle-2 Faridabad Haryana

ITAT Delhi ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting additions made under section 153A. The tribunal held that statements recorded under section 132 during ... Assessment u/s 153A - incriminating material unearthed during a search or not - HELD THAT:- The statement recorded u/s 132 as relied upon by the AO does not constitute incriminating material in the absence of any other corroborative evidence as also submitted by him. Judgments relied upon also laid down that the statement recorded during the course of search alone cannot be regarded as incriminating unless supported by corroborative evidence substantiating the same. So far as the addition made by the AO u/s 153A is concerned in the absence of any incriminating material referred by the AO the same is not found to be sustainable in the eyes of law keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell.[2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] Further that we have already observed that the statement in the absence of corroborative evidence cannot be said to be incriminating in nature, the entire assessment in the case in hand without having support of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and thus, the consequent addition made by the AO is found to be bad in law and deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal arise primarily under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly Section 153A and Section 132, and concern the validity of reopening a completed assessment in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during a search. The issues include:1. Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) can invoke Section 153A to reopen and make additions to a completed assessment when no incriminating material or evidence was found during the search under Section 132.2. The evidentiary value and legal effect of statements recorded under Section 132(4) during search proceedings as incriminating material.3. The correctness of additions made on account of unexplained loans received from a paper company identified during investigation.4. The validity of making additions based on differences between the declared cost of construction and valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO).5. The onus on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of entities from whom loans or credits are received, especially when such entities are alleged to be shell companies.Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Completed Assessment under Section 153A Without Incriminating MaterialThe relevant legal framework includes Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, which permits reopening of assessments in cases where a search under Section 132 has been conducted. However, the reopening is permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search. The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC) is pivotal. It held that:'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 assessments/unabated assessments.'The Court emphasized that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during search or requisition under Section 132 or 132A.The Tribunal, relying on this precedent, noted that the assessment year under consideration had attained finality before the search, and the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) had expired. Since no incriminating documents or materials were found or seized during the search relating to the assessee, the reopening of the assessment under Section 153A was not sustainable. The Tribunal further observed that statements recorded under Section 132(4) alone do not constitute incriminating material without corroborative evidence, citing various High Court and Supreme Court decisions.The Tribunal applied the law to the facts by quashing the assessment order and the appellate order, holding that additions made without incriminating material found during search are bad in law.Issue 2: Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded Under Section 132(4) as Incriminating MaterialThe AO had relied on statements recorded under Section 132(4) during search proceedings as incriminating material to justify additions. However, the Tribunal referred to binding judicial precedents which clarify that such statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence, cannot be treated as incriminating material. The judgments cited include:PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., affirmed by Supreme CourtCIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, Delhi High CourtPCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), Delhi High CourtPCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High CourtPCIT, Delhi-20 vs. Ms. Suman Agarwal, Delhi High CourtThe Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded under Section 132(4) are not self-sufficient to constitute incriminating material unless supported by other evidence. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to produce corroborative evidence to substantiate the statements and therefore the additions based solely on these statements were unsustainable.Issue 3: Additions on Account of Unexplained Loans from a Paper CompanyThe AO made additions under Section 68 on account of unexplained loans received from M/s Rajat Fincap Private Limited, which was identified as a shell or paper company during investigation. The assessee was required to establish the creditworthiness of this entity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge this onus satisfactorily.During investigation, it was revealed that SRS Group had accepted large amounts of unaccounted cash routed through multiple shell companies, including Rajat Fincap Pvt. Ltd., which was one among seventy-one such entities identified. The Tribunal accepted the AO's contention that the creditworthiness of Rajat Fincap Pvt. Ltd. was not proved and therefore the addition on this account was justified.The Tribunal's reasoning was consistent with the principle that where a loan or credit is unexplained and the lender is a sham entity, the amount is liable to be treated as income of the borrower.Issue 4: Additions Based on Difference in Valuation of Construction CostThe AO relied on the Departmental Valuation Officer's (DVO) report under Section 142A to make additions based on a difference of Rs. 25,57,321 between the assessee's declared cost of construction and the DVO's estimated valuation.The Tribunal examined the valuation difference and the assessee's explanation that the valuation was only an estimate and minor variations are acceptable. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407, which held that the AO cannot make additions solely based on the DVO's valuation report without conducting an independent inquiry.The Tribunal concluded that the difference was marginal and did not warrant any addition. It held that the AO's addition on this ground was not sustainable.Issue 5: Onus on Assessee to Prove Creditworthiness of Loan ProvidersThe Tribunal reiterated the well-established principle that the assessee must prove the creditworthiness of entities from whom loans or credits are received. In the present case, since M/s Rajat Fincap Pvt. Ltd. was found to be a shell company created during investigations, and the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence of its financial capacity, the addition under Section 68 was justified.The Tribunal also noted the cash transactions and fund routing through shell companies as evidence of unaccounted income being funneled into the assessee's accounts.Significant Holdings'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 assessments/unabated assessments.''The statement recorded under Section 132(4) alone cannot be regarded as incriminating unless supported by corroborative evidence substantiating the same.''Addition in respect of variation in valuation in between cost of construction of building as indicated by the DVO is not significant and no addition is required against this proposed addition.''The creditworthiness of the lender has to be proved by the assessee, failing which the loan amount is liable to be treated as income.'Applying these principles, the Tribunal quashed the additions made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during search, deleted the addition based on valuation difference, but upheld the addition on account of unexplained loans from a shell company due to the assessee's failure to prove creditworthiness.