Tax addition cannot rest solely on director's search statement without evidence; tribunal upholds deletion of Rs.6 crore

ITAT Ranchi dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition made solely on the basis of a director's search statement declaring additional income. The Tribunal held that a mere admission, without corroborating incriminating material or seized documents, is insufficient to bring alleged undisclosed income to tax. It emphasized that group income can be taxed only upon proper disclosure through a revised return and supporting evidence. As no revised return was filed and no independent evidence of the alleged Rs. 6 crores income existed, the addition was unsustainable.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether an addition of undisclosed income can be sustained solely on the basis of a statement/letter of the assessee offering additional income, in the absence of any corroborative incriminating material or evidence found during search or assessment.

1.2 Whether, for bringing group-wide undisclosed income to tax pursuant to a search, the absence of a revised return or any other statutory disclosure by the assessee vitiates an addition made only on the basis of such statement.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 & 2: Addition of Rs. 6 crores based solely on assessee's statement/offer without corroborative evidence or revised return

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal considered the assessment framed pursuant to a search, noting that the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6 crores based exclusively on the assessee's statement/letter offering additional income for a specific assessment year, without reference to any seized documents or incriminating material. The Tribunal also took note that the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the addition on the ground that there was no evidence to support the alleged undisclosed income except the statement.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal observed from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had merely extracted and relied upon the director's statement, wherein the assessee "beg to offer an additional income of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- for A.Y. 2014-15", claimed to be a voluntary disclosure made to "have peace of mind and to avoid any litigation", with an expectation that "no penalty will be imposed".

2.3 The Tribunal found that, apart from this statement/letter, the Assessing Officer had not relied upon or referred to any seized documents, incriminating material, or other evidence to show that the assessee had in fact earned undisclosed income of Rs. 6 crores during the relevant assessment year.

2.4 The Tribunal noted that even on the assessee's own narrative in the statement, the declaration was linked to "certain debtors from whom we have to realize substantial amount", and there was no independent material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish that any such receipts represented undisclosed income.

2.5 The Tribunal emphasized that "just because the assessee makes a statement, the income cannot be brought to tax unless and until the Assessing Officer finds some evidences to show that the assessee has earned such income, which has not been disclosed in its return." The existence of a mere offer or declaration, without supporting material, was held to be insufficient to justify the addition.

2.6 The Tribunal further recorded that, for the purpose of bringing any group income to tax pursuant to a search, one of the primary requirements is the filing of a revised return. In this case, it was specifically noted that no revised return had been filed by the assessee disclosing the additional income of Rs. 6 crores; there was only a letter addressed to the Assessing Officer.

2.7 The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that, in the absence of any seized document, incriminating material, or other corroborative evidence to suggest that such income had been actually earned and not disclosed, an addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of a statement or letter of voluntary disclosure.

2.8 The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not been able to dislodge the factual findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the complete absence of incriminating material or documentary basis for the addition.

Conclusions

2.9 The Tribunal held that an addition of Rs. 6 crores could not be made and sustained merely on the basis of the assessee's statement/offer of additional income, in the absence of corroborative evidence or incriminating material establishing undisclosed income.

2.10 The Tribunal held that, where no revised return was filed and the only basis for the addition was a letter/statement, and there was no supporting material found during search or assessment to indicate actual undisclosed income, the addition was unsustainable in law.

2.11 The Tribunal found no error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 6 crores and declined to interfere, resulting in dismissal of the revenue's appeal.

---