2025 (10) TMI 1057 - AT - Income Tax

Mechanical s.153D approval invalid; assessments under ss.153A/153D quashed; s.68 additions for opening balances, unsecured loans deleted

ITAT held the s.153D approval was mechanical and invalid, quashing assessments framed under ss.153A/153D for AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20. Additions under s.68 ... Mandatory approval required as per provision of section 153D - Validity of assessment orders framed u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- We hold that the approval granted u/s 153D in the present case was accorded in a mechanical and consolidated manner, without due application of mind and without separate consideration of each assessment year. Such approval being invalid, the consequential assessment orders framed u/s 153A read with Section 153D for Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2019-20 cannot be sustained in law and are therefore quashed. Additions on account of unexplained capital and unsecured loans - It is a well-established principle of law that opening balances cannot be added to income u/s 68 of the Act. This provision is specifically designed to address the issue of unexplained credits in the books of account for the current financial year, and not for balances carried forward from previous years. Additions u/s 68 must be made for credits appearing during the year under consideration. The court clarified that opening balance, which are carried forward from previous years, cannot be subject to additions u/s 68.AO did not raise any issues regarding new unsecured loans taken during the year under consideration, and these were deemed genuine. Therefore, if there were any discrepancies or issues, they should have been addressed with respect to fresh credits introduced during the current year, not with opening balances. We also note that on one hand, books of accounts have been rejected and on the other hand falling on the very same set of books to make the addition u/s 68. As submitted above, AO has pointed out the several defects in the books of accounts viz. not maintained financial year wise, not maintaining any stock records thus taking the stock value at the end of year on presumption only and any other deficiencies pointed out by the assessee and admitted by the Ld.AO and on the basis of these defects and deficiencies, the books of accounts were rejected u/s 145(3). While doing so ld. AO observed that all bank transactions related to purchases and sales were recorded both in the books of Shri Ram Enterprises and Hari Om, including instrument numbers. Despite this, the AO relied on the tally data seized during the search proceedings to conclude that the assessee was involved in unaccounted sales and purchases. Consequently, the AO deemed the regular books of account maintained under the trade name Shri Ram Enterprises to be unreliable and not reflective of the true profit of the assessee. Having done so of rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3), the AO estimated the average gross profit rate at 10.09% based on best judgment, resulting in a trading addition of Rs. 8,28,572/ -. This estimation was made u/s 144, which pertains to assessments based on the best judgment of the AO. Therefore, once that books were not relied upon no separate addition u/s 68 can be made, even if the assessee has not fully discharged the burden of proof concerning amounts shown in the books of account. This principle is established in several judicial precedents as held in the case of CIT Vs. G.K. Contractor [2009 (1) TMI 840 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein held that when net profit is estimated by the AO by rejecting the book result u/s 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made on account of cash creditor. From the records the bench noted that the nature of the entries recorded in the Raghaw Karnani account, the impugned ledger account, which was found and seized, pertains to the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. Over the span of these four years, the account solely consists of book entries, with no evidence of any actual flow of funds. This clearly indicates that the account is merely a notional record and does not reflect any real transfer of money or funds by the assessee to constitute any alleged unexplained capital. The nature of entries posted in the said account clearly highlights that opening balance is nothing but the amount lying accumulated in the account due to certain book entries passed without involving any actual flow of the funds, therefore, it cannot be construed as a basis for any addition u/s 68. The bench also noted the opening amount punched in the tally were not indicating any actual balances or financial positions of the assessee. From the submission made we note that the names listed above shows that these were accounts created in the name of family members and amounts have been shown therein by way of book entries. Certain accounts are towards expense payable to advocate, which is in fact in the nature of creditor. Similarly, Jain Vastralay is a supplier of clothes thus in the nature of sundry creditor. Similarly, Mahesh Mundhra account is also towards purchases made, thus not falling under category of unsecured loans to make any addition u/s 68 of the Act. Therefore, considering the facts and judicial precedent we hold that the addition (opening capital) and (unsecured loans) represent balances from earlier financial years and cannot be added in the year under consideration as per provision of section 68 of the Act and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted and thereby Ground of assessee are allowed. Additions made on account of Race Kids wear and Gopala Garments - The burden of proof lies with the tax authorities to establish the legitimacy of any claims regarding the source of loans. If there is a need to evaluate the loans extended by Shri Ramesh Kumar Mundhra or Mahesh Kumar Mundhra, this should be carried out distinctly in their assessments rather than incorrectly attributing these loans to the assessee without sufficient or corroborative evidence. We also note that no digital data or supporting materials were discovered during the search that could substantiate this claim. As argued by assessee that the contention of the ld. AO was that M/s. Gopala Garments and M/s. Race Kids Wear are not independent entities but rather operational units of M/s Ambica Garments. This characterization carries significant implications for the assessment of income and taxation. Given this relationship, the consolidated financial affairs of Ambica Garments are already reflected in the financial statements of Jai Shri Ram. Since any profits generated by Gopala Garments and Race Kids Wear are included within the overall profits reported by Jai Shri Ram, it follows that any attempt to add these profits to the assessee's income would constitute double taxation - duplicative assessments, which result in double taxation of the same income, are not permissible under tax law. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether approval under section 153D (statutory prior approval for assessments following search) granted in a consolidated/mechanical manner without recorded application of mind vitiates assessment orders passed under section 153A. 2. Whether additions under section 68 (unexplained cash credits) and allied sections based on seized tally data / parallel books (Jai Shree Ram / Hari Om) are sustainable where (a) those seized records are alleged to be preliminary/internal/error-ridden and (b) many of the amounts represent opening balances carried forward from prior periods. 3. Whether, after rejection of books under section 145(3), the Assessing Officer may (i) estimate business/profitability under section 144 and simultaneously (ii) make separate additions under section 68/69/69A for unexplained credits, or whether such separate additions are precluded. 4. Whether ledger entries or loose one-page seized documents (pertaining to other concerns or 'operational units' such as Gopala Garments / Race Kids Wear) found at partner/residential premises can be treated as assessee's books/accounts and used to make additions in assessee's hands absent corroborative material linking ownership/control. 5. Whether penalty initiation based on alleged contraventions is prematurely challengeable before adjudicating authority for assessment (i.e., whether appellate forum should decline to adjudicate initiation of penalties). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Approval under Section 153D Legal framework: Section 153D mandates prior approval by a specified senior officer before finalising assessments under section 153A arising out of search/seizure; approval must reflect application of mind to draft orders. Precedent treatment: Recent judicial authorities require that approval under the provision not be a mere rubber stamp; approving authority must record at least minimal indication that draft orders were examined (approval cannot be mechanically granted in bulk for multiple years without consideration). Interpretation and reasoning: The approvals in the record were consolidated, mechanically worded and devoid of any indication of consideration of seized material, appraisal or draft orders, or of reasons. The Tribunal applied the principle that absence of any recorded application of mind by the approving authority renders the approval vitiated. Reliance was placed on controlling jurisprudence that treated mechanical/bulk approvals as invalid and emphasised statutory safeguard purpose of section 153D. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an approval that is mechanistic and without indication of application of mind invalidates consequent section 153A assessments. Obiter - none significant beyond supporting authority references. Conclusion: Approvals granted in consolidated/mechanical form without recorded application of mind are invalid; therefore assessments framed under such defective approvals are quashed. This technical ground succeeds for all impugned years in the batch and vitiates the assessments made pursuant to those approvals. Issue 2: Additions under Section 68 based on Seized Tally Data / Parallel Books and Treatment of Opening Balances Legal framework: Section 68 casts onus on assessee to explain identity, capacity and genuineness of credits appearing in books; special presumptions operate for documents found during search (statutory presumptions regarding ownership and truthfulness of seized books). Opening balances are ordinarily carried forward entries from prior years and additions under section 68 typically apply to credits introduced/appearing in the year under assessment. Precedent treatment: Courts distinguish (a) credits introduced in the relevant year (s.68 additions sustainable) and (b) genuine carried forward opening balances from prior years (not to be added in the current year). Precedents also recognise that where seized documents are reliable, their contents attract statutory presumptions; conversely, courts have set aside additions founded on unreliable/incomplete seized material. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analysed the seized tally data and assessment material. It noted: (i) assessee's consistent contention that the seized tally records were preliminary/internal drafts (used for staff incentives), calendar-year based, with classification and inventory deficiencies; (ii) AO's acceptance that seized data had defects and consequently invoked section 145(3) to reject books; (iii) the impugned additions included substantial amounts described by AO as opening capital/opening unsecured loans (i.e., balances carried forward). On this factual matrix the Tribunal held that additions attributable to opening balances carried forward from earlier years cannot be sustained under section 68 for the year under appeal. The Tribunal also observed that where seized material is demonstrably error-ridden and not corroborated by other evidence, additions based solely on such material are unsustainable; but it balanced that against statutory presumptions operative on seized material and accepted only those additions that could not be characterised as prior year opening balances or were otherwise unproved by the assessee. The Tribunal allowed deletion of those opening-balance additions and directed limited relief where ledgers/bank corroboration supported reduction; remaining additions were partly allowed/deleted as per detailed factual comparison performed at appellate stage. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - opening balances carried forward from earlier years cannot be added under section 68 in the assessment year; where seized records are preliminary/unreliable and not corroborated, section 68 additions based solely on them are not sustainable. Obiter - general observations on interplay of presumptions under search provisions and on burden of proof. Conclusion: Additions representing opening capital/unsecured loans carried forward from prior years were deleted. Additions based solely on uncorroborated/seized tally data that represented carried forward balances or notional entries were unsustainable. Limited adjustments where audited books or bank records matched were directed (some specific reductions upheld by appellate authority). Issue 3: Validity of Simultaneous Estimation under Section 144 after Rejection under Section 145(3) and Separate Additions under Section 68/69/69A Legal framework: Section 145(3) permits rejection of books; thereafter AO may estimate income under section 144 on best judgment. Sections 68/69/69A are special deeming provisions treating unexplained credits, investments, money as income unless satisfactorily explained; scheme contemplates taxation of such deemed income even where business income is separately estimated. Precedent treatment: Authorities are divided but settled lines of decisions hold that (a) AO in appropriate cases may both estimate business income and make additions under section 68/69/69A where unexplained credits are not referable to the estimated business income, and (b) where unexplained credits are referable to the same suppressed sales that were estimated, separate additions may be impermissible because estimation should encompass suchitems. Cases also recognise that rejection of books does not immunise assessee from separate unexplained credit additions when facts warrant. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal applied this bifurcated approach. It examined whether unexplained credits/loans were referable to the same business receipts that had been estimated. Where unexplained credits were distinct in character (capital/loans, not simply undisclosed sales) and not accounted for by the AO's estimation of trading profit, AO could lawfully make additions under section 68/69A. Conversely, where the unexplained credits were essentially part of the same sales/purchase suppression that formed the basis of the estimation, separate additions were not permitted. The Tribunal also confirmed that rejection of books does not preclude invocation of section 68 in appropriate circumstances (relying on apex and high court precedents), but emphasised careful fact-based application to avoid double taxation/double counting. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - AO may in an appropriate case both estimate business income after rejection of books and make separate additions under sections 68/69/69A provided unexplained credits are not referable to the same suppressed business receipts encompassed by the estimation; if they are referable, separate additions may not be permissible. Obiter - observations on manner of allocation and need to avoid double counting. Conclusion: Tribunal allowed/deleted additions after applying the above test: several section 68 additions (especially opening balances) were deleted; where AO had not demonstrated that unexplained credits were distinct from estimated business receipts, separate additions were disallowed; in limited instances where corroborative material supported AO's view that entries represented unexplained funds distinct from trading profits, additions sustained or partly sustained. Issue 4: Use of Loose One-Page Documents (Gopala Garments / Race Kids Wear) Found at Partner's Residence Legal framework: To treat a document as a book of account of the assessee and to make additions under section 68, revenue must establish link between documents and assessee (ownership/control/operation), and adequate corroboration is necessary. Seized loose papers without corroborative digital data or independent indicia are weak foundation for additions. Precedent treatment: Courts require proof of ownership, control or that entries relate to assessee's affairs; mere possession of loose papers does not automatically make them assessee's books. Absent corroboration, additions based on such papers are unsustainable. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the seized pages were one-page sheets found at a partner's residence, bore addresses inconsistent with assessee's place of business, contained manufacturing expense heads not matching search findings, and lacked corroborative digital entries. The partner's statements denying ownership and absence of other connecting materials weighed against revenue. On these facts the Tribunal concluded that the loose papers did not qualify as assessee's books and could not be the sole basis for additions. It further noted the risk of double-addition where such items are alleged separately while consolidated books already reflect operations. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - loose/unverified seized documents not corroborated by other material cannot, by themselves, sustain additions in assessee's hands. Obiter - cautionary note on double taxation where consolidated records exist. Conclusion: Additions based solely on those loose seized sheets were deleted. Where documents were not linked to the assessee by independent evidence, Tribunal disallowed Section 68 additions and trading adjustments premised only on such loose papers. Issue 5: Challenge to Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Legal framework: Penalty proceedings under chapters concerning contraventions (e.g., sections 271D/271(1)(c)) are separate and independent proceedings; assessments and penalty adjudications are distinct processes. Precedent treatment: Appellate courts/tribunals routinely treat grounds premised on mere initiation of penalty proceedings as premature and non-justiciable until final penalty order is passed by competent authority. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that challenge to mere initiation of penalty proposals is premature before the penal adjudicating authority; the assessee must raise objections in penalty proceedings before the designated officer. Consequently, appellate treatment of such grounds was treated as disposed of (premature). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - challenge to mere initiation of penalty is premature; such grounds are to be adjudicated in appropriate penalty proceedings. Obiter - procedural direction to avail remedy before designated penalty authority. Conclusion: Grounds challenging initiation (not imposition) of penalties were treated as disposed of as premature. Overall Disposition - Synthesis The Tribunal (on a consolidated hearing) allowed the technical ground that approvals under section 153D were mechanically granted and quashed the consequent assessments for the impugned years. On merits (to the extent considered), the Tribunal directed deletion of additions representing opening balances and loose or uncorroborated entries; it applied established tests on simultaneous estimation and section 68 additions, allowing or disallowing specific additions after factual scrutiny. Penalty initiation grounds were held premature. The Tribunal emphasised fact-sensitive application of principles, need for corroborative evidence when relying on seized material, and avoidance of double taxation where consolidated records exist.