TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee has preferred cross-objections against revenue's appeals. 1.2. The Registry has noted delay of 165 days in the cross objections, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR appearing for the assessee on the strength of condonation petition. It has been submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but on account of public commitments of the assessee due to which the assessee could not concentrate on personal affairs. Though Ld. CIT-DR has opposed condonation of delay, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we condone the delay and admit the cross-objections for adjudication on merits since in the cross-objections, the assessee has merely raised legal grounds only. 1.3 The grounds taken by the Revenue in AY 2015-16 read as under: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,50,00,000 made towards undisclosed income representing the amounts received from M/s. SRS Mining based on the seized materials and Sworn statement of Shri. K. Srinivasulu and Shri. Nagarathinam. 2.1 The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edgement for the payments made, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that maintaining clear, unambiguous and formal records of transaction of such nature would not be done for obvious reasons. 2.5. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition has been made on the basis of sworn statement recorded u/s.132(4) on 10.12.2016 which has evidentiary value. Shri. Srinivasulu retracted his sworn statement after a gap of 106 days, which is only an afterthought. It is held in various decisions that once the statements has been recorded on oath, duly signed, it has a great evidentiary value and it is normally presumed that whatever stated at the time of recording the statements under Section 132(4), are true and correct and brings out the correct picture, as at that time the assessee is not influenced by external agencies. Hence, the retraction of statement by Shri. Srinivasulu, after a gap of 106 days was not relied upon by the assessing officer. 2.6. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer has correctly arrived presumption u/s.132(4A) and 292C of the Act in respect of the materials seized during the course of search, which was further stren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-03- 2023 in ITA No. 420 /CIT-A(l 9)/21-22 in so far as the legal issue on the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act and consequently erred in sustaining the validity of the impugned order without appreciating the fact that the seized materials were neither "pertaining to" the respondent as there was no mention of his name on any of the materials seized nor there was any information available in the seized material which "related to" the respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the approval accorded by the Range Head was in a mechanical way without application of mind. The respondent objects such approval accorded by the Range Head as he would not have had enough time to study the case and understand the importance of the submissions made and blatantly had accorded approval in a mechanical way without application of mind 4. The Respondent craves leave to-file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. As is evident, the so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esponse, the assessee filed return of income on 06-11-2019 declaring income of Rs. 2.66 Lacs which was the same as filed u/s 139(1). Subsequently notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued from time to time calling for requisite details from the assessee. 4.3 The Ld. AO proceeded to finalize the assessment after going through the seized material, sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4), u/s 131(1A) and after considering the submissions of the assessee. 4.4 During the course of search on M/s SRS Mining on 08-12-2016, sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from one Shri K. Srinivasulu who was maintaining the seized documents on the instructions of partners of M/s SRS Mining. The statement was also recorded from Shri J. Sekar, Shri S. Ramachandran and Shri K. Rethinam. On the basis of entries found in the seized material coupled with the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu, Ld. AO alleged that the assessee was one of the persons who had received payments from M/s SRS Mining for facilitating mining and transportation of sand in the state of Tamilnadu. The partners of the firm were controlling the entire gamut of sand mining operations throughout the length and breadth of the state sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned by Shri S. Nagarathinam, in-charge of the premise, written in his own handwriting, was found. The matrix notebooks gave detailed account of cash received during each day from sand yard owners at Chennai and also the amounts paid to various influential persons during the day. 4.7 In this regard, a sworn statement was recorded from Shri S. Nagarathinam who confirmed that the said books belonged to him and maintained by him. It contained the details of receipt from 4 sand mining sites and the expenditure incurred. Apart from expenditure, there were lots of payment to various persons as directed by Shri Srinivasulu. The Ld. AO noted that these books were being maintained meticulously. The left side had opening balance of cash, receipts of the day, and payments of the day and the closing balance. Even the denomination of the closing balance was also mentioned in the bottom half. With the help of meticulous notings, the search team managed to track Rs. 24 Crores in new Rs. 2000 notes from a TATA Ace vehicle at Vellore. The right side had break up of cash received yard-wise and details of payments made to various influential persons during the day. A heading was given as to payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivasulu in his own handwriting. Shri K. Srinivasulu was trusted aide of Shri J. Sekar These note books contained only the details of payments made to influential people date-wise. The entries found in these books matched with that of the Matrix notebooks and cash books maintained by Shri S. Nagarathinam. Thus, there were three different evidences, corroborating with each other, for the firm M/s SRS Mining having made regular incidental payments for running its business. 4.10 The Ld. AO further observed that the name of the assessee also appeared as one of the parties to whom the firm had made payments on regular basis. The seized notebooks contained date-wise notings of the amounts paid to persons in public service. The name and designation of the public servants involved were confirmed by the partners / employees of M/s SRS Mining in their sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4). The assessee was mentioned in the notebooks as 'HM'. Shri K. Srinivasulu, in answer to question No.4 of statement recorded u/s 132(4). stated that the 'HM referred to 'Housing Minister'. Since the assessee was Minister of Housing and Urban Development during this period, it was alleged by Ld. AO that these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dic payment to the assessee and added the impugned amount to the income of the assessee as unexplained income as under: - 7.26 In view of the detailed arguments mentioned in the above para, it is clear that SRS mining was making regular and periodic payments to the assessee. Further the assessee during the scrutiny proceedings has merely denied receiving them though voluminous seized materials / document show that he has received huge amounts regularly. Despite receiving regular payments the assessee has failed to disclose the amount of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- in his return of income filed u/s 153C and has not explained the source too. Therefore, this amount represents his unexplained and undisclosed income for AY 2015-16 and the same is taxed in his hands. Penalty proceedings is initiated against the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AYs 2016-17 as well as for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee in both the years. In addition, in AY 2017-18, Ld. AO made another addition of undisclosed income. The same was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 43 to 53 contains an amount of Rs. 71.44 Crores as received from the assessee which was distributed to various constituencies. Similar statement was recorded from Shri T. Shanmugasundaram on 09-12-2016. He was working as an accountant in M/s SRS Mining. The Ld. AO thus formed an opinion that this amount was spent by way of unexplained expenditure for political gain to various constituencies over Tamilnadu by the assessee. 4.18 The Ld. AO, in similar background, rejected the retraction of Shri K. Srinivasulu and of Shri T. Shanmugasundaram on the ground that the statement was based on facts and with reference to the narration specified in the incriminating documents. The retraction was merely an after-thought. Similarly, the retraction of Shri K. Srinivasulu was also rejected with the observation that it would not be fair to believe that a person who was remanded to a prison could submit a letter voluntarily and without coercion. Further, the retraction was after lapse of 103 days without any convincing reply for such a delay. Even if the statements are retracted by both of them, the same would still have evidentiary value in terms of various judicial decisions. Finally, it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court was held to be inapplicable in view of amendment made by Finance Act, 2015 to Sec.153C wherein the words 'belongs to' was substituted by the words 'pertains to' and 'relates to'. Considering the same, this legal ground as urged by the assessee was dismissed. 5.2 The assessee raised another legal ground for AY 2017-18 on the ground that the assessment ought to have been completed for this year u/s 143(3) instead of making an assessment u/s 153C. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that as per first proviso to Sec.153C, the reference to the date of search u/s 132 in the second proviso to Sec.153A(1) was required to be construed as reference to date of receiving the seized books of accounts / documents or assets by the AO having jurisdiction over the person other than the searched person. Prior to amendment made to Section 153C(1) by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01-04-2017, there was no specific mention therein regarding the manner of ascertaining the period of six assessment years. The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2017 made it explicit that the period of six assessment years for the purpose of section 153C would be reckoned with reference to the assessment year releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to be construed as the date of recording of satisfaction by the AO of the other person, by following the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It was noticed from the records that the satisfaction note was recorded by the AO of the assessee on 05-11-2019. Hence, the six assessment years have to be reckoned as the assessment years immediately preceding the AY 2020-21 relevant to the previous year in which the satisfaction has been recorded by the AO. The six assessment years which are required to be assessed u/s 153C would therefore be AYs 2014-15 to 2019-20. Consequently, the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 has rightly been completed u/s 153C and therefore, this legal ground was also dismissed. 5.3 The assessee also assailed the impugned additions on merits. It was submitted that the seized material was in the nature of dumb documents which could not be the basis for assessment since it does not contain the complete particulars of relevant transaction and the persons involved in the said transactions. The additions made on the basis of such a dumb document would not be sustainable. The assessee contended that the seized material would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....name 'HM' or 'HM(M)' represent the payments made to the assessee. However, there was no mention anywhere in the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu that the assessee was the actual recipient of the payments shown against the said abbreviated name. The main issue that would arise for determination is that whether such entries found against the abbreviation of the assessee's official position in the material seized from a third-party could be used to draw adverse inference against the assessee, without there being anything more on record in corroboration of the same. 5.5 The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the aforesaid seized material as relied upon by Ld. AO was seized from the premises of a third-party during the course of search conducted in the case of the said third-party. The said material was neither seized from the premises of the assessee nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the assessee and therefore, the same would not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the assessee, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. This proposition was laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sant Lal (118 Taxmann.com 432) wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily. The aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court stresses the need for exercising caution and for bringing on record relevant, reliable and cogent evidence to corroborate the entries found in loose sheets and note books regarding the payments allegedly made to important constitutional functionaries so that the process of law is not abused by unscrupulous persons in order to achieve ulterior goals. Therefore, it was important that the corroborative evidence was available on record in support of the entries in the seized material found in the premises of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed material, such a general statement would not inspire confidence for drawing any conclusion in respect of specific entries appearing therein allegedly with the abbreviated name of the assessee to conclude that the entries represent payment made to the assessee only. There was nothing in the statement even to remotely suggest that the entries appearing with the abbreviated name actually represent payment made to the assessee. The statement merely stated that the entries were maintained on the instructions of the partners of M/s SRS mining. It was very clear that Shri K. Srinivasulu had no first-hand knowledge of the payments noted in the seized material and had merely noted whatever was told to him by the partners. In such a situation, the statement would serve a very limited purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person who made the entries and nothing more. Since the entries were made on the instructions of the partners, it is the partners who were required to explain the exact identity of the recipients, the nature of payments, the purpose of payments and the identity of the person who made the payments etc. However, there was no material on record which would show that an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence to corroborate the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s SRS mining Vs UOI (141 Taxmann.com 272), at para 9, observed that the statement of Shri K Srinivasulu could not be relied upon as he turned hostile by giving specific retraction statement and there was no need to accord permission to cross-examine him in view of the said reason. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. 5.9 In the present case, AO did not rely on any other corroborative evidences except for relying on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu since in the sworn statements of three other partners recorded on 08-12-2016, no questions were posed to them at all regarding the seized material allegedly containing the details of incidental charges paid to various persons. It was thus evident that no other corroborative evidence was available in record in respect of notings in the seized material. 5.10 The Ld. CIT(A) also concurred that the assessee denied having any transaction with the groups and therefore, he could not be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... abbreviated name 'HM'. There was no corroborative evidence to support and supplement the details in the seized material to conclusively establish that the name 'HM' found in the seized material refers to the assessee only. There was no corroborative evidence to prove that the payments noted in the seized material have actually materialized and transfer of money has actually taken place between the concerned parties. In view of all these reasons, it was to be held that Ld. AO had not discharged the onus to prove that the assessee was actually in receipt of the payments reflected in the seized material with reliable and cogent independent evidences to corroborate the entries in the seized material. Therefore, the addition of alleged receipts by the assessee from M/s SRS Mining was deleted for all the three years. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. Addition of undisclosed amount for AY 2017-18 6.1 This issue, more or less, has been adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) on similar lines. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was made based on the entries found in the loose sheets seized from the office premises of M/s SRS Mining coupled with statement of Shri K. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning from the assessee. Further, AO inferred that the expenditure by way of various constituencies as noted found noted on page nos. 34 to 42 and at page nos. 44 to 53 of seized loose sheets vide ANN/KGAR/MPKSSR/LS/S-1 represents expenditure out of the said receipts of Rs. 227.24 Crores. However, upon perusal of the contents of the aforesaid seized material, it could be noted that the name of the assessee did not appear in any of the relevant loose sheets taken into consideration by the AO while drawing such an inference. It was noticed that the name 'HM' appears as scribbling at the top of the loose sheets at page nos. 42 and 53 of seized material vide ANN/KGARIMPKSSR/LS/S-1, which contains notings regarding the receipt of amounts aggregating to Rs. 227.24 Crores for meeting the expenditure by way of distribution to various constituencies. However, the abbreviated name 'HM' do not appear in any of the remaining seized loose sheets as referred to by Ld. AO. Though the name of the assessee was not found noted in any of the relevant seized loose sheets and the abbreviated name of 'HM' was found noted in two loose sheets only, Ld. AO held that the entries in the said seized material r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pendent corroborative evidence. 6.4 The Ld. AO also relied on the statement of Shri T. Shanmugasundaram (accountant of M/s SRS Mining) recorded u/s 132(4) on 09-12-2016 for the purpose of drawing the inference that the assessee paid Rs. 227.24 Crores to M/s. SRS Mining for the purpose of distribution to various constituencies. The AO referred to the relevant parts of his statement at paras 8.9 of the assessment order and reproduced the answers given by the said person to Q.No.12 of the said statement. Upon perusal of the same, it was evident that Shri. T. Shanmugasundaram had merely confirmed that the loose sheet vide ANN/VK/TS/LS/S-1 were in his handwriting and the notings were made during the period of Tamilnadu Assembly Elections, 2016. However, the said statement would not lend any support to the Ld. AO to hold it against the assessee since said loose sheet did not contain any details of alleged amount of Rs. 227.24 Crores paid by the assessee to M/s SRS Mining for the purpose of distribution to various constituencies. In the said answer, there was no reference to the assessee. Therefore, Ld. AO could not have drawn any support from the statement for arriving at any adverse ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l seized from a third-party which are purportedly the transactions made by the said third-party with the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also referred to the decision of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Satyapal Wassan [TS-5104-ITAT-2007 (Jabalpur)-O] and also various other decisions which have been enumerated in paras 78 and 79 of the impugned order. Further, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA No.250/Mum/2013) held that AO was required to bring further evidence on record to show that the money was actually exchanged between the parties in case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheets found in the premise of third-party and admission made by the third-party. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (supra) held as under: - We are constrained to observe that the Court has to be on guard while ordering investigation against any important constitutional functionary, officers or any person in the absence of some cogent legally cognizable material. When the material on the basis of which investigation is sought is itself irrelevant to constitute evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted against the bland entries of receipts appearing in the loose sheets. The break-up of the amounts received along with the corresponding date of receipts was not available in the said loose sheets. There was absolutely no mention in the seized loose sheet regarding the precise identity of the persons from whom the said amounts were received and the dates of receiving the same. In the absence of such essential and critical information, it could not be inferred that the amounts were received from the assessee whose name does not even appear at all in the seized loose sheets. An entry made in a diary or notebook by a third person with scant details cannot be used to fasten tax liability on the person, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to attribute the entries to such a person. Such seized material was liable to be treated as a dumb document, which would not have any evidentiary value in respect of the entries found therein, unless corroborative evidence is available which can provide necessary reliable basis for deciphering the details of the identity of the person who made the relevant transaction. 6.8 In the light of above stated facts, Ld. CIT(A) concurred that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivasulu became non38 cooperative and hostile during the course of preliminary examination of the said person before Ld. AO on 19-12-2018. Since the witness turned hostile, it was concluded that cross-examination would not serve any useful purpose. That assessee preferred Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying for issue of directions to the AO to permit the assessee to cross-examine the witness being relied upon by Ld. AO. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2018. The Hon'ble Court held that there was no infirmity in the order of AO in refusing the request for cross-examination since the witness turned hostile. The Hon'ble Court further observed that if AO was to rely on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu which is in favor of the revenue, the AO has to let in other reliable evidence to corroborate the same. Similarly, the Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s SRS mining Vs UOI (141 Taxmann.com 272), at para 9, observed that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be relied upon as he turned hostile by giving specific retraction statement and there was no need to accord permission to cross-examine him in view of the said reason. Considering t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 7. From the detailed facts and discussions as enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs, it emerges that the impugned additions have been made by Ld. AO in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the search and seizure action by the department u/s 132 in group cases of M/s SRS mining and its partners on 08-12-2016. During the course of search action, certain incriminating material was found from the premises of M/s SRS Mining. The said material allegedly contained details of cash payment / incidental charges paid to several persons including the assessee. During the course of above search, residential premises of Shri T. Shanmugasundaram (an employee of M/s SRS Mining) was also searched wherein some incriminating material was found which also contained the details of receipt and distribution of cash on behalf of the assessee. Since the aforesaid material had bearing on determination of total income of the assessee, a satisfaction was arrived u/s 153C and proceedings u/s 153C were initiated against the assessee which culminated into impugned assessment on 28-09-2021 for AY 2015-16. Similar assessment was framed for A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cluded by Ld. AO that the seized material was actual books of accounts of M/s SRS Mining which were being maintained by S. Nagarathinam and K. Srinivasulu. 9. From Yogambal Street, Matrix brand spiral books as maintained by Shri S. Nagarathinam, in-charge of the premise, written in his own handwriting, was found. The matrix notebooks gave detailed account of cash received during each day from sand yard owners at Chennai and also the amounts paid to various influential persons during the day. A sworn statement was also recorded from Shri S. Nagarathinam who confirmed that the said books belonged to him and maintained by him. It contained the details of receipt from 4 sand mining sites and the expenditure incurred. Apart from expenditure, there were lot of payments to various persons as directed by Shri Srinivasulu. The Ld. AO noted that these books were being maintained meticulously and provide detailed accounts of cash receipts and payments. The daily statement of sand yards was compared with the Matrix notebook maintained by Shri S. Nagarathinam and it was found that the amount sent to head office from each sand yards tally exactly with the receipts shown in the matrix notebook....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l decisions. The same would still be valid evidence since the same was recorded on the basis of factual and with specific reference to the seized records. 13. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), rejected various legal grounds of the assessee assailing assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C. The Ld. AO formed an opinion that the aforesaid seized material had bearing on determination of total income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, jurisdiction u/s 153C was valid. The findings of Ld. CIT(A) have already been enumerated by us in preceding paras 5.1 and 5.2. In our considered opinion, these legal issues are perfectly been addressed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same do not warrant any interference on our part. The assessee is unable to show any perversity in the same. Therefore, we endorse the adjudication of lega grounds by Ld. CIT(A), in this regard. 14. So far as the merits of quantum addition is concerned, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) have been enumerated by us in detail in preceding paragraphs. The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of the relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear in any of the entries so considered by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the assessee as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sant Lal [2020] 118 Taxmann.com 432 (Del). The Hon'ble Court, in similar situation, held no addition could be made merely on the basis of such entries. The ratio of the said decision was squarely applicable to the case of the assessee as the Ld. AO has not referred to any cogent material to corroborate the entries made in the material seized from a third-party which are purportedly the transactions made by the said third-party with the assessee. The other decisions including the decision of Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan [TS-5104-ITAT-2007 (Jabalpur)-O] further supports this proposition. Similarly, Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Riveria Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITA No.250/Mum/2013) held that AO was required to bring further evidence on record to show that the money was actually exchanged between the parties in case where there was no other evidence on record to prove that on-money was paid except the loose sheets found in the premise of third-party and admission made by the third-party. Also, Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t payment made to the assessee. The statement merely stated that the entries were maintained on the instructions of the partners of M/s SRS mining. It was very clear that Shri K. Srinivasulu had no first-hand knowledge of the payments noted in the seized material and had merely noted whatever was told to him by the partners. In such a situation, the statement would serve a very limited purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person who made the entries and nothing more. Since the entries were made on the instructions of the partners, it is the partners who were required to explain the exact identity of the recipients, the nature of payments, the purpose of payments and the identity of the person who made the payments etc. However, there was no material on record which would show that any of the partners was examined with regard to relevant entries in the seized material. There was no reference to any such statement of the partners in the assessment order. Therefore, the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could barely be considered as corroborative evidence against the assessee with regard to the entries in the seized material. This was further fortified by the fact that the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no need to accord permission to cross-examine him in view of the said reason. Considering these observations, it was to be held that the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu could not be used against the assessee unless some other evidence to corroborate the same was made available on record. In the present case, AO did not rely on any other corroborative evidences except for relying on the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu since in the sworn statements of three other partners recorded on 08-12-2016, no questions were posed to them at all regarding the seized material allegedly containing the details of incidental charges paid to various persons. It was thus evident that no other corroborative evidence was available in record in respect of notings in the seized material. Therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained merely by relying on this statement only. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged receipts by the assessee from M/s SRS Mining has rightly been deleted by Ld. CIT(A). We endorse the view of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard. 20. So far as the addition of alleged receipts from assessee to SRS Mining and distribution thereof to various constituencies is concerned, it could be observed that the impugned addition has been made based on the entries found in the loose sheets seized from the office premises of M/s SRS Mining coupled with statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu u/s 132(4) (from whose possession the material was seized) with regard to the contents of the said seized material, entries found in the loose sheets seized from the residential premises of Shri T. Shanmugasundaram (accountant of M/s. SRS Mining) and the statement of Shri. T. Shanmugasundaram u/s 132(4) dated 09.12.2016 with regard to the contents of the said seized material. The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of seized material, rendered factual finding. It was noted by Ld. CIT(A) that Ld. AO inferred that the amount of Rs. 227.24 Crores found noted as receipts at page nos. 42 & 53 of the seized loose sheets vide ANN/KGAR/MPKSSR/LS/S-I represents the amount received by M/s. SRS Mining from the assessee. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot found noted anywhere in the relevant pages of the seized material and the abbreviated name of 'HM' was found scribbled at the top of page nos. 42 and 53 of the said seized material which contains bland notings with regard to the receipts of Rs. 227.24 Crores. It could be noted that the remaining pages in the seized material do not contain either the name of the assessee or the abbreviated name such as 'HM'. In the light of all these crucial facts, the statement of Shri K. Srinivasulu lacks any credibility and the same remains unsubstantiated. The said deponent did not at all explained as to how the details of receipt of money and its distribution found in page Nos. 42 to 53 have been attributed by him to the assessee when there was absolutely no mention of assessee's name in the said loose sheets and the acronym 'HM" found noted as scribbling at the top could be ascribed to the assessee without there being any material in the seized loose sheets to substantiate the same. Therefore, as rightly concluded by Ld. CIT(A), the statement of Shri. K. Srinivasulu was to be held to be opposed to the facts which was evident from the seized material and the same could not be considered to b....