Search-based reassessment notices u/s147/148 and additions for alleged bogus purchases using untested third-party evidence struck down

Reopening under s.147/s.148 pursuant to a search was upheld, as issuance of notice does not require incriminating material in the assessee's possession; existence and sufficiency of material is to be examined in reassessment proceedings, and the regime was treated as analogous to pre-1.4.2021 search assessments. The challenge to jurisdictional validity was dismissed. Use of third-party material gathered behind the assessee's back without confrontation and without opportunity of cross-examination violated ss.142(2) and 142(3), rendering additions based on such material unsustainable. Consequently, the estimated addition for alleged bogus purchases solely based on a tax authority report was deleted. Addition under s.69D (and consequential s.69C) based on unreliable loose papers and presumptions, without corroborative enquiry, was rightly deleted.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notice under section 148 after a search initiated on or after 01.04.2021 were invalid for want of incriminating material or for not furnishing recorded reasons at the notice stage.

2) Whether additions for alleged unrecorded coal purchases/cash payments based on third-party search material could be sustained where the seized material and statements were not properly confronted and cross-examination was not afforded, and where the documents were not clearly attributable to the assessee.

3) Whether addition for alleged bogus purchases based solely on a GST authority's report could be sustained when the assessing authority conducted no independent enquiry and the assessee produced purchase and payment evidence.

4) Whether additions for alleged cash loans/hundi transactions and related interest, based on third-party diaries/loose papers and a purported promissory note, could be sustained in absence of specific incriminating linkage to the assessee and in light of denial by the searched person and lack of independent enquiry.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1) Validity of notice under section 148 after post-01.04.2021 search

Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal examined the post-01.04.2021 search reassessment scheme and treated the statutory design as requiring issuance of notice under section 148 for the prescribed assessment years after a qualifying search, with the existence or sufficiency of incriminating material to be tested in assessment proceedings rather than as a pre-condition to issuing notice.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that under the new search regime, the Assessing Officer is obliged to reopen the relevant years following a search and that absence of incriminating material in the assessee's premises does not, by itself, vitiate issuance of notice. The Tribunal expressly disagreed with a coordinate bench view relied upon by the assessee, and accepted the Revenue's contention that the reassessment notice mechanism is analogous to the earlier search assessment architecture in the sense that notice follows the search and merits/additions are to be examined during assessment.

Conclusion: Challenges to reopening on the grounds that no incriminating material was found at the assessee's premises and that additions were based on third-party searches were rejected; the notice and reopening were upheld and these grounds were dismissed.

2) Addition for alleged undisclosed coal purchases/cash payments based on third-party search material

Legal framework (as applied by the Tribunal): The Tribunal applied principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement that material gathered at the back of the assessee and proposed to be relied upon must be confronted to the assessee and opportunity given to respond. The Tribunal also relied on the necessity of cross-examination where third-party statements are used adversely, and treated non-confrontation/non-cross-examination as fatal in the facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessing authority based the addition primarily on documents seized from a third party and alleged statements, yet "hopelessly failed" to confront the assessee with the underlying material and did not examine the concerned third-party persons nor afford cross-examination. It also found serious infirmities in attribution and quantification: the alleged documents were not clearly in the assessee's name, lacked clear identification/initials, and the purchase-rate/quantity estimation was based on presumptions; further, the assessee's accounts and manufacturing/audit disclosures were not disturbed or rejected, and there was no corroborative evidence of corresponding unaccounted production/sales that would logically follow from large-scale unaccounted raw material purchases. The Tribunal held that such an addition could not be sustained on mere third-party papers and statements without proper confrontation, enquiry, and reliable linkage to the assessee.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held the addition (and the appellate estimation of profit on such alleged purchases) unsustainable and directed deletion of the addition relating to alleged undisclosed coal purchases/cash payments; consequential connected addition was also allowed.

3) Addition relating to alleged bogus purchases based on GST report

Legal framework (as applied): The Tribunal evaluated whether an addition could stand when founded solely on external departmental information without independent verification by the assessing authority, particularly where the assessee produced primary evidences of purchases and banking payments.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessing authority relied directly on the GST authority's report alleging non-existence/non-compliance of the supplier, but did not conduct any enquiry of its own. Against this, the assessee produced bills/vouchers and evidence of payments through banking channels. Given the lack of independent enquiry and the presence of documentary evidence produced by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the inference of bogus purchases and consequential profit addition could not be sustained on the record as used by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the confirmation of the profit-rate addition on these purchases and directed deletion of the addition.

4) Addition under section 69D for alleged cash loans/hundi transactions and consequential interest under section 69C based on third-party loose papers/diaries

Legal framework (as applied): The Tribunal assessed evidentiary reliability of third-party loose papers/diary notings and the necessity of corroboration and enquiry linking such material to the assessee, as well as the impact of denial by the searched person and absence of meaningful examination by the assessing authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal upheld the appellate finding that the assessing authority's inference of large cash loans was based on "surmises" from incomprehensible/abbreviated diary notings and a single document on letterhead, without demonstrating a clear nexus to the assessee. The Tribunal accepted that the searched person's statement did not contain specific incriminating material against the assessee and that, in remand, the searched person denied transactions with the assessee. The Tribunal further found the assessing authority did not carry the suspicion to logical conclusion: no effective enquiry was made from alleged counterparties, and the circumstances of possession of the purported promissory note were not clarified. Consequently, the underlying material was treated as unreliable for fastening liability on the assessee, and the related notional interest addition also failed.

Conclusion: Deletion of the cash-loan/hundi addition and consequential interest addition was upheld; the Revenue's grounds on this issue were dismissed, and dependent grounds were treated as infructuous.

---