Search-case evidence: extrapolation from unauthenticated market rates is impermissible, and documented cash credits stand unless rebutted.

The notes address tax additions in a search assessment: the Tribunal held that sales-suppression additions based on seized marketing material and extrapolation from unauthenticated market-portal rates lacked cogent corroborative evidence and were therefore deleted. It held that unexplained cash credits were discharged where the assessee produced identity, ledger and banking evidence for lenders, shifting the onus to the Assessing Officer who failed to rebut with concrete material, so the cash-credit addition was deleted. The Tribunal also found supervisory approval for the assessment was perused and not mechanical, dismissing the mechanical-approval plea.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for alleged suppression of sale receipts (Rs. 810.75 lakhs for specific seized instances and extrapolated Rs. 350.16 lakhs for remaining units) are sustainable; (ii) Whether addition of Rs. 232.00 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 is sustainable; (iii) Whether approval under Section 153D was mechanical and without application of mind.

Issue (i): Sustainability of additions for suppressed sales including specific seized instances and extrapolated sales based on market portal rates.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined seized welcome letters, digital loose sheets, whatsapp materials and buyer statements and found no signed, dated or corroborative documents proving receipt of excess consideration by the assessee. The solitary buyer statement relied upon by the Department (Santokh Singh) supported the assessee's case that welcome letters overstated consideration and were used as marketing/negotiation tools. Extrapolation for remaining units was held to be based on unauthenticated market portal rates and speculative assumptions without seized material, independent evidence, buyer examination, rejection of books under Section 145(3), comparable sale deeds, or valuation cell reference. The Tribunal applied the principle that additions in search cases must be founded on cogent, corroborative material and not on conjecture or mechanical application of market rates.

Conclusion: Issue (i) decided in favour of the assessee; additions of Rs. 810.75 lakhs and Rs. 350.16 lakhs are deleted.

Issue (ii): Legality of addition of Rs. 232.00 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the assessee produced documents establishing identity and ledger/ bank evidence for the lenders, including PAN/Aadhaar, account copies, ledger extracts, ITRs and financial statements for certain lenders; loans were routed through banking channels and several loans were repaid. The proviso to Section 68 applicable to companies (Finance Act, 2012) and the additional onus introduced by Finance Act, 2022 were held not to apply to AY 2019-20. Once the assessee discharged primary onus by documentary evidence, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer to rebut with cogent material; no independent enquiries or concrete material were brought on record to dislodge the furnished evidence.

Conclusion: Issue (ii) decided in favour of the assessee; addition of Rs. 232.00 lakhs under Section 68 is deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether approval under Section 153D given by Range Head (Addl. CIT) was mechanical.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed timeline and supervisory practice in search and seizure assessments, noting the Range Head's role and CBDT guidance; it concluded that the Range Head had perused assessment records and applied mind before accord of approval and that the approval was administrative and not adjudicatory.

Conclusion: Issue (iii) decided against the assessee; the plea of mechanical approval under Section 153D is dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's corresponding grounds and deleted the impugned additions for suppression of sales and unexplained cash credits, while dismissing the contention of mechanical approval under Section 153D; accordingly the assessee's appeal is partly allowed and the revenue's appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Additions in search cases must be based on cogent, corroborative evidence; extrapolation using unauthenticated market portal rates without seized material or independent corroboration is impermissible, and once an assessee discharges primary onus under Section 68 by producing identity and bank/ledger documents, the Assessing Officer must produce concrete evidence to rebut the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors.

---