2025 (7) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes bogus share capital addition under section 68 due to insufficient evidence and procedural violations

K. World Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi.

ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal against addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus share capital from M/s Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal held that reliance ... Assessment u/s 153A - addition u/s 68 - incriminating material found or not? - as argued by assessee addition is made by solely placing reliance on the statement of a third party recorded during the search on the third party - addition on account of the alleged bogus share capital received from M/s Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd., which was allegedly controlled by Sh. Anil Aggarwal who was in business of providing accommodation entry u/s 68 - addition on the basis of a statement of Sh. Anil Aggarwal recorded u/s 132(4) HELD THAT:- As per the statement of Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, accommodation entries were provided to Rockland Group. There is no specific reference of assessee. There is no material to show that assessee is in any connected to Rockland Group or its directors. No material is mentioned in impugned orders to show that any document or any information from the financials showed of assessee or M/s Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd. indicate that share capital was received from some tainted sources. Reliance of statement alone of Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, is thus not legal. In any case the assessment has been completed in the hands of assessee u/s 153A r.w 143(3) of the Act. The search in case of assessee was conducted on 5.4.2012. Search in case of Sh. Anil Kumar was conducted and statement recorded on 21.10.2021. Thus if statement of Sh. Anil Kumar was to be relied as incriminating material then assessee happened to be ‘other person’, and assessment should have been completed by proceeding u/s 153C of the Act. The decisions relied in case of Anand Kumar Jain case [2021 (3) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT] squarely apply to the case of assessee. The additional grounds are sustained. The appeal is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:(a) Whether the assessment order dated 30.03.2015 passed under Section 153A(1) read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the additions made therein are legal and within jurisdiction.(b) Whether the addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- on account of alleged bogus share capital received from M/s Ankay Associates Pvt. Ltd. was justified on the facts and law.(c) Whether the approval under Section 153D of the Act was valid or mechanical and without application of mind.(d) Whether the statement of a third party recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act during search proceedings can constitute incriminating material to justify additions under Section 153A, without corroborative evidence.(e) Whether the procedure under Section 153C of the Act was required to be followed when incriminating material pertains to a person other than the searched assessee.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) & (b): Legality of assessment order and addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- on alleged bogus share capitalRelevant legal framework and precedents: The assessment was framed under Section 153A(1) read with Section 143(3) of the Act consequent to search and seizure under Section 132. Section 153A permits assessment or reassessment of income of a searched person for six assessment years relevant to the year of search, if incriminating material is found. Section 68 deals with unexplained share capital and additions thereto.Precedents relied upon include the jurisdictional High Court decisions in PCIT v. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) and PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., which emphasize that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material discovered during search and that statements under Section 132(4) alone do not constitute incriminating material without corroboration.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the addition was made solely on the basis of the statement of a third party, Sh. Anil Aggarwal, recorded under Section 132(4) during search on that third party. The statement was not confronted to or provided to the assessee, and there was no other corroborative material found during the search on the assessee to justify the addition.Key evidence and findings: The assessee had filed its original return declaring a loss. The addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- was based on the allegation that the share capital was bogus and received from a company controlled by a person providing accommodation entries. The statement of that person was relied upon by the AO. However, there was no direct link or incriminating material found in the search of the assessee or its documents to substantiate the addition.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that incriminating material must be found in the course of search on the assessee to justify additions under Section 153A. Since the statement was recorded during search on a third party and no other material was found in the assessee's search, the addition could not be sustained.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue contended that the statement constituted incriminating material and that conditions under Section 68 were satisfied. The assessee argued that the statement of a third party without corroboration cannot be the basis for addition under Section 153A. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument persuasive, relying on High Court rulings that statements under Section 132(4) alone do not constitute incriminating material and that corroborative material is necessary.Conclusions: The addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction as it was based solely on a third party's statement without corroborative evidence found during search of the assessee.Issue (c): Validity of approval under Section 153D of the ActRelevant legal framework: Section 153D requires prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax for assessments under Sections 153A and 153C. The approval must be given after application of mind.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee contended that the approval was mechanical and without application of mind, rendering the assessment illegal. The Tribunal, however, did not elaborate extensively on this point but included it as part of the grounds for quashing the assessment.Conclusions: The Tribunal found the approval under Section 153D to be mechanical and invalid, contributing to the illegality of the assessment order.Issue (d) & (e): Use of third party's statement under Section 132(4) as incriminating material and applicability of Section 153CRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 132(4) allows recording of statements during search. However, the jurisprudence, including Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), clarifies that statements recorded under Section 132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. Further, Section 153C mandates that if incriminating material pertains to a person other than the searched person, assessment should be made under Section 153C, not Section 153A.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the statement of Sh. Anil Aggarwal was recorded during search on a third party, not the assessee. The assessment was framed under Section 153A, which applies to the searched person. Since the statement pertained to another person, the correct procedure would have been to proceed under Section 153C, which was not followed.Key evidence and findings: The search on the assessee was conducted on 05.04.2012, whereas the statement of the third party was recorded on 21.10.2021. The temporal gap and procedural requirements under Section 153C were not adhered to.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that use of third party statements as incriminating material under Section 153A is impermissible without following Section 153C procedure. The absence of opportunity to cross-examine and lack of procedural compliance rendered the assessment invalid.Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the statement was incriminating and the conditions under Section 68 were met. The assessee emphasized procedural lapses and absence of corroborative material. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, relying on authoritative precedents.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the statement of the third party could not be used as incriminating material under Section 153A and that the assessment should have been framed under Section 153C. The failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 153C rendered the assessment void.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The statement of Mr. Jindal recorded under Section 132(4) forms the foundation of the assessment carried out under Section 153A of the Act. That statement alone cannot justify the additions made by the AO. Even if we accept the argument of the Revenue that the failure to cross-examine the witness did not prejudice the assessee, yet, we discern from the record that apart from the statement of Mr. Jindal, Revenue has failed to produce any corroborative material to justify the additions.''The existence of incriminating material found during the course of the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation. In the event no incriminating material is found during search, no addition could be made in respect of the assessments that had become final.''Statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material.''If the statement was to be construed as incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than the person searched, then the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act.'Core principles established include:Incriminating material necessary under Section 153A must be found during search on the assessee; statements of third parties alone are insufficient.Statements under Section 132(4) do not automatically constitute incriminating material without corroboration.When incriminating material relates to a person other than the searched person, assessment must be framed under Section 153C, not Section 153A.Approval under Section 153D must be given after application of mind; mechanical approval invalidates assessment.Final determinations:The addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- was illegal and without jurisdiction.The assessment order dated 30.03.2015 under Section 153A(1) read with Section 143(3) was quashed.The procedural requirements under Section 153C were not followed, rendering the assessment invalid.The approval under Section 153D was mechanical and invalid.