2025 (6) TMI 784 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee wins appeal as additions worth Rs. 5 lakhs deleted under Section 292C presumption

ITAT Dehradun allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions totaling Rs. 5 lakhs based on images recovered from the mobile phone of the assessee's ... Addition based on an image recovered from the mobile phone of a third party - presumptions stipulated in Section 292C - HELD THAT:- Image that was found from the brother of the assessee was not containing any ledger as stated by the lower authorities. Instead it reflects a small statement containing certain figures together with the name of assessee's proprietary concern with the date. The said transaction neither depicts any purchase made by the assessee nor sales made by the assessee. It does not reflect transaction purported to be recorded in any ledger account under any accounting software available in the market. The assessee had always pleaded that his brother Anuj Kumar Singhal is an independent person assessed to income tax and had duly filed his return of income showing income from trading business. It is not in dispute that the image was found and seized from the mobile of assessee's brother during the course of search. Hence, the said contents should be presumed to be belonged to Shri Anuj Kumar Singhal in terms of section 292C of the Act, unless rebutted by him. The revenue was not able to bring on record any rebuttal statement given by Shri Anuj Kumar Singhal either during the course of search or during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no scope of considering the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee by relying on the image found from 3rd party premises. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. Addition u/s 69C - loose paper was found and seized from the assessee brother's mobile which mentioned that there was some cash payment for some unknown expenditure and cash memo - AR vehemently argued that the show cause notice for both the sums were originally given by the ld AO as to why the same should not be disallowed u/s 40A(3) by drawing a presumption that the loose sheet represents payments made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the said loose sheets, we find that these papers are some estimates and rough notings. There is no mention of receiver of payment or identity of person who possibly existed and had received any payment. There is no evidence to prove that the said loose sheet represent payments made by the assessee so as to either invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) or section 69C of the Act. The said loose sheet does not even mention that it represent either payment or receipt. Hence, we hold that these loose sheets are mere dumb documents not corroborated with any other extraneous link with the transactions of the assessee or his business. Hence, we have no hesitation to delete the said additions - Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:(a) Whether an addition under the Income-tax Act can be sustained based on an image or document recovered from the mobile phone of a third party, specifically the assessee's brother, in light of the presumptions under Section 292C of the Act;(b) Whether an addition under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act for unexplained expenditure can be validly made when the expenditure was neither incurred nor recorded in the assessee's audited books of accounts, and when the assessment was carried out under Section 40A(3) of the Act;(c) Whether additions based on loose papers containing rough workings, which do not mention the assessee's name or business and are not treated as expenditure by the assessee, can be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C;(d) Whether unexplained additions can be made on the basis of documents or numbers not admitted by the assessee during search or assessment proceedings and which cannot be directly associated with the assessee's business;(e) Whether large additions imposed by the Assessing Officer are sustainable where they are based on assumptions and adverse inferences without substantive evidence.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Validity of addition based on image recovered from third party's mobile under Section 292CRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 292C of the Income-tax Act provides a presumption that books or documents found in the possession or control of a person are presumed to belong to that person for all purposes under the Act, unless rebutted. This presumption is crucial in search and seizure cases to establish ownership of seized material.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the image in question was found on the mobile phone of the assessee's brother, an independent person who is also assessed to income tax. The image purportedly contained a ledger related to the assessee's proprietorship concern. However, on close examination, the image did not constitute a ledger or reflect any purchase or sales transaction. It was merely a small statement with some figures and the name of the assessee's concern, without any indication of accounting entries or transactions.Key evidence and findings: The revenue failed to produce any rebuttal statement or evidence from the assessee's brother to disprove the presumption under Section 292C that the seized material belonged to him. The assessee consistently maintained that the brother is an independent taxpayer and that the image was found on his device.Application of law to facts: Since the image was found on a third party's device and there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of ownership in favour of the brother, the Tribunal held that the addition based on this image could not be sustained against the assessee.Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue argued that the brother manages the assessee's business affairs and hence the image pertains to the assessee. The Tribunal rejected this contention as the mere management of affairs does not transfer ownership of documents found on the brother's mobile, especially without corroborative evidence.Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 69C based on this image was deleted. Grounds 1 and 2 were allowed.Issue (b) and (c): Addition of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C based on loose papers and cash memosRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69C deals with unexplained expenditure, requiring that the assessee must have incurred the expenditure for it to be added as unexplained. Section 40A(3) relates to disallowance of expenditure where payment is made in cash beyond prescribed limits.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer initially issued show cause notices under Section 40A(3) regarding two amounts: Rs. 32,969/- and Rs. 45,570/-, based on loose papers and a cash memo found on the brother's mobile. However, the additions were ultimately made under Section 69C without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain applicability of this section.The Tribunal observed that the loose papers were mere rough workings or estimates, without any indication that they represented payments or receipts related to the assessee's business. The papers did not mention the payee or any party involved, nor did they bear the assessee's name or business details. The cash memo lacked particulars identifying who raised it. There was no evidence linking these documents to actual expenditure incurred by the assessee.Key evidence and findings: The assessee denied ownership or incurrence of the expenditures mentioned in these documents. The documents were found on the brother's mobile and were not corroborated by any accounting record or extraneous evidence connecting them to the assessee's business.Application of law to facts: Since the documents did not prove that the assessee had incurred these expenditures, the essential requirement under Section 69C was not satisfied. The Tribunal held that these were 'mere dumb documents' and could not be the basis for additions.Treatment of competing arguments: The revenue's reliance on the loose papers and cash memo as evidence of unexplained expenditure was rejected due to lack of connection with the assessee's business and absence of corroborative evidence.Conclusions: The additions of Rs. 32,969/- and Rs. 45,570/- under Section 69C were deleted. Ground No. 3 was allowed.Issue (d) and (e): General challenge to large additions based on assumptions and adverse findingsRelevant legal framework and precedents: Additions to income must be based on tangible evidence and cannot be sustained on mere assumptions or conjectures. The burden lies on the revenue to establish the correctness of additions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's additions of Rs. 5,78,539/- were based on assumptions and adverse inferences without substantive evidence. The assessee's general grounds challenging these additions were noted but did not require separate adjudication beyond the specific issues already discussed.Key evidence and findings: The record did not disclose any concrete material supporting these high-pitched additions.Application of law to facts: Without credible evidence, such additions cannot be sustained.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find merit in the revenue's reliance on assumptions and adverse findings unsupported by evidence.Conclusions: The general grounds challenging the additions were accepted to the extent that the specific additions discussed were deleted. Grounds 4, 5, and 6 were effectively allowed.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The contents should be presumed to belong to Shri Anuj Kumar Singhal in terms of section 292C of the Act, unless rebutted by him. The revenue was not able to bring on record any rebuttal statement given by Shri Anuj Kumar Singhal either during the course of search or during the course of assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no scope of considering the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the hands of the assessee by relying on the image found from 3rd party premises.''These loose sheets are mere dumb documents not corroborated with any other extraneous link with the transactions of the assessee or his business.''The addition was made solely because the appellant did not provide an explanation for the alleged expenditure, leading the Ld. Assessing Officer to consider it for addition under Section 69C due to the appellant's inability to verify the transaction. It is important to note that the assessee neither Incurred nor recorded such an expense in his audited books of accounts, rendering the action unjust and invalid.'Core principles established include:The presumption under Section 292C applies strictly to the person in possession or control of the documents and cannot be transferred without evidence.Unexplained expenditure under Section 69C requires that the assessee must have incurred the expenditure; mere possession of documents or rough papers without corroboration is insufficient.Additions based on assumptions or documents not linked to the assessee's business or not admitted by the assessee cannot be sustained.Final determinations:The additions of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 5,78,539/- based on the image found on the third party's mobile and assumptions were deleted.The additions of Rs. 32,969/- and Rs. 45,570/- based on loose papers and cash memos were deleted.The appeal was allowed in entirety.