2025 (6) TMI 1315 - AT - Income Tax

Survey documents belonged to group companies not individual salary earner facing wrongful tax additions

The DCIT Ludhiana Versus Kapil Romana And (Vice-Versa)

ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting additions made under sections 68 and 69C read with section 115BBE. The additions were based on ... Addition u/s 68 and 69C r.w.s. 115BBE - Addition on the basis of loose documents recovered from the residence of assessee - HELD THAT:- A bare look at such seized document clearly demonstrate that in the said two documents, the various CC limits, as enjoyed by different group concerns of ‘Homeland Group’ have been detailed therein. Even majority of the details like FLC limit, DP Allowed, outstanding balances, LC Margin, collateral security in respect of each and every group concern, have been detailed their in. The names of certain parties have been mentioned against certain amount has been recorded, it was also contended by Ld. Counsel that since the group was facing financial crises, the assessee was contemplating to raise certain borrowings from different parties. Some of such transactions of borrowings did materialize and such transactions of borrowings have duly been reflected in some of the group concerns as per regular books of accounts. These evidences were forwarded to the AO for verification. During remand proceedings, it has been established that some of the entries as per loose sheets, where the name of the party and amounts mentioned are tallying with the books of accounts of the respective group concerns. The contention of the assessee that he was trying to arrange the finances from some of the other parties, in order to tied over the financial difficulty, faced by the group is plausible and bonafide contention. It is a matter of record that the assessee is not having any business income and he is drawing salary only from the group. He has hot been maintaining any personal books of accounts. Even, during the course of survey, no unexplained assets/unexplained investment/unexplained money/jewellery have been seized from the premises of the assessee. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant was engaged in some business activity. It is found that the transactions as recorded in the seized excel sheets do not belong to the assessee at all. Even in the remand report nothing adverse was pointed against the assessee. Thus, we are in agreement with the finding of CIT(A), deleting the addition. Assessee appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered in these appeals and cross-objections revolve around the validity and applicability of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically under sections 68, 69C, 115BBE, and procedural compliance under section 153D. The principal issues include whether the seized documents during search and seizure operations establish that the assessee had unexplained unsecured loans or business income, the correctness of the AO's interpretation of such seized documents, the applicability of section 292C regarding corroborative evidence, the legitimacy of reopening assessments under section 147, and the validity of approval accorded mechanically by the Addl. CIT under section 153D.One major issue concerns the interpretation and evidentiary value of seized loose papers and excel sheets recovered during search operations at the premises of the assessee and the Homeland group. The AO treated certain entries in these documents, particularly those under the name 'BTD 2011' and involving parties such as 'Dr. Jagjeet Singh Chawla' and 'Rani Ji Jagraon', as evidence of unsecured loans raised by the assessee, leading to additions under sections 68 and 69C read with section 115BBE. The assessee contended that these documents pertain to the financial affairs of the Homeland group and not to him personally, as he is only a salaried employee managing the group's financial matters without any business income or personal books of accounts.The Tribunal analyzed the legal framework governing unexplained cash credits and unexplained loans under sections 68 and 69C, which require the assessee to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of such credits or loans. The AO's reliance on seized documents as primary evidence was challenged on the ground that these documents lacked corroboration and did not establish any direct link to the assessee's personal finances. The Tribunal emphasized the settled legal principle that seized documents must be read as a whole and cannot be interpreted selectively to attribute transactions to the assessee without clear evidence.Regarding section 292C, which mandates that no addition can be made solely on the basis of information received from a search without corroborative evidence, the Tribunal found that the AO had failed to provide primary or corroborating evidence linking the seized documents to the assessee's business or personal income. The CIT(A) and subsequently the Tribunal held that the AO's assumptions regarding the ownership of the 'BTD 2011' ledger and the transactions recorded therein were unsubstantiated. The fact that the assessee was a salaried employee with no business income and no personal books of accounts was a significant factor in negating the AO's additions.The Tribunal also considered the fact that the reopening of assessments under section 147 in the case of 'Dr. Jagjeet Chawla' based on these documents was itself dropped, which undermined the AO's reliance on these documents as credible evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the entries in the seized documents were largely projections or group-level financial arrangements rather than actual unsecured loans to the assessee. The remand proceedings further established that some of the borrowings mentioned in the documents corresponded with the books of accounts of group companies, reinforcing the assessee's contention that these were group transactions and not personal loans.The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him, holding that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the nature of the seized documents and demonstrated that no unexplained income or assets were found during the search. The Tribunal underscored that no material suggested the assessee was engaged in any business activity or had any unexplained investments, money, or jewellery. The absence of such corroborative evidence weighed heavily against the AO's additions.On the procedural issue raised in the cross-objections regarding the approval under section 153D, the assessee contended that the approval accorded by the Addl. CIT was mechanical and lacked judicial application of mind, citing recent judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts and ITAT benches. The Revenue defended the approval as judicially given, arguing that simultaneous signing of multiple approvals did not imply mechanical action. The Tribunal, however, refrained from adjudicating this issue on merits since the Revenue's appeals were dismissed on substantive grounds, rendering the procedural challenge moot.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A) that the additions made by the AO under sections 68, 69C, and 115BBE for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 were not justified. The Tribunal agreed that the seized documents and entries therein did not pertain to the assessee personally but related to the financial affairs of the Homeland group. The Tribunal emphasized the principle that 'any seized document of evidence has to be read as a whole in its entirety and it cannot be interpreted in bits and pieces so as to give a different meaning to part of the transactions,' referencing authoritative precedents. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was a salaried employee, not engaged in any business activity, and no unexplained assets or income were found during the search.The Tribunal's significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts from the CIT(A)'s order, which the Tribunal endorsed:'The Assessing Officer has erred in interpreting the seized document and the so-called transactions reflected therein to be belonging to the appellant and holding them as cash unsecured loans received by the assessee. The AO has failed to establish the existence of any entity by the name of BTD 2011 and nor the assessee has been found to be engaged in any business activity. The assessee has been admittedly a salaried person involved in handling the financial matters of his group companies.''There is no seized material available, which suggests that the appellant was not an employee but was a key person of this group and was a beneficiary of these transactions.''It is settled legal principle that any seized document of evidence has to be read as a whole in its entirety and it cannot be interpreted in bits and pieces so as to give a different meaning to part of the transactions.''In view of the above facts and discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant has been able to discharge his burden of proof in respect of this document, whereas, there is no other material available on record to suggest otherwise. The appellant is a salaried person of the GH group of companies and the document, on the basis of which, addition of Rs. 40,84,04,230/- has been made, does not contain transaction of unsecured cash loan received by the appellant.'Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for all three assessment years on merit and also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections for statistical purposes, without adjudicating the procedural issue regarding approval under section 153D.