TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings in this case have a distinct history marked by significant judicial intervention. On 12.09.1993, during preliminary investigations unrelated to the assessee's income-tax assessment, a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs were recovered from a vehicle in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, in a separate FERA matter. Investigations by the Enforcement Directorate followed, and the assessee was briefly detained under COFEPOSA. 3. On 30.03.1995, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making an adhoc addition of Rs. 40,00,000 to the assessee's declared income, primarily based on the claim that the recovered cash belonged to the assessee. The assessee appealed this order before the CIT(A). The Set-Aside Order (07.06.1995), Ld. CIT(A) set aside the original assessment order with the observation that the AO had not afforded adequate opportunity to the assessee before imposing such a substantial addition. Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to make a fresh assessment after proper investigation and affording due opportunity. 4. Subsequently, fresh Search was conducted on 01.10.1993 at the residence of one Mr. Shyam Sunder Gupta, certain documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order, and CIT(A)'s set-aside order (of 07.06.1995) had not directed the AO to look into any new source of income. The CIT(A) invoked the principles laid down in Sardari Lal Co. v. CIT (251 ITR 864, Delhi HC Full Bench), which bars the CIT(A) from discovering new sources of income. By analogy, the CIT(A) extended this bar to the AO in the context of a set-aside assessment. 2. On Merits (Evidence Act Principle): The CIT(A) held that the loose handwritten slips could not be treated as "books of account" within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act. Relying on CBI v. V.C. Shukla (1998 I Crimes 219, SC), the CIT(A) concluded that loose papers have very little evidentiaiy value and cannot form the sole basis for assessing income. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had failed to produce any conclusive evidence establishing that the figures in these slips represented his personal taxable income. 3. Natural Justice issue: The CIT(A) observed that the AO had rejected the assessee's explanation without recording reasons, and the assessment had been completed hastily. 4. Other Considerations: The CIT(A) noted that the original proceedings had been initiated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the addition, and therefore: - Are pure questions of law arising from the same facts and record already before the Tribunal. - Do not require any further investigation of facts. -Are necessary for a correct adjudication of the appeal, because the assessee has made the jurisdiction" point (Sardari Lal / Saheli) the central ground for supporting the CIT(A). Accordingly, they fall squarely within the law laid down in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the consistent ITAT practice on admission of additional grounds by either party. Legal framework for admission- ITAT's powers- Section 254(1) empowers the Tribunal to pass such orders as it thinks fit in appeals before it. This has been interpreted as wide, plenary powers to entertain additional grounds which are purely legal and arise from the record. Rule l1 of the ITAT Rules permits the appellant to raise additional grounds at the time of hearing, subject to Tribunal's leave. Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law which arises from the facts on record, even though not raised earlier, so long as it does not require fresh investigation of fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee's legal synopsis and case-law paper-book, is: - What is the correct scope of AO's powers in a de novo assessment after a set-aside under Section 251? - Can seized material, received subsequently but before completion of de novo assessment, be used† - Did CIT(A) err in importing strict rules of the Evidence Act / V.C. Shukla into income-tax assessment? Tribunal's duty is to decide the substantial questions of law arising from the order of CIT(A); refusing to admit these grounds would artificially truncate that duty. 4. No prejudice to assessee: - Assessee has already: Filed an elaborate legal synopsis on jurisdiction, Filed a fat paper-book of case law on Sardari Lal, Saheli Synthetics, Evidence Act, loose papers, etc. Thus, assessee is fully aware of these issues and has already taken a considered stand on them. There is no element of surprise; at most, the Tribunal may offer opportunity to file a short-written reply. No new factual investigation is sought, so no prejudice in evidence terms. Natural justice is fully preserved: assessee has had years to address these legal issues and admission of these g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he additional grounds sought to be raised by the Revenue. The attempt to introduce such grounds is a clear afterthought, made only after counsel for the assessee consistently demonstrated that the Revenue's appeal, as originally filed, suffers from a fatal jurisdictional infirmity and is liable to be dismissed as merely academic. Accordingly, the additional grounds are wholly impermissible and deserve to be rejected outright for the following reasons: (a) The additional grounds have been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly 19 years from the filing of the original memorandum of appeal. Importantly, absence of any such ground was expressly recorded by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the order sheet dated 20.05.2014 and on several subsequent occasions. Further, despite the exchange of detailed legal synopses between the parties in 2011, the Revenue consciously chose not to raise the present issue; and (b) Even at this belated stage, the Revenue has failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever for the extraordinary delay, rendering the application for admission of additional grounds liable to be rejected on this ground alone. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AAC or, as the case may be, the CITA and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary. "The use of the phrase "such further inquiry as may be necessary" is deliberately broad. It does not confine the AO to the specific items mentioned in the original assessment; rather, it grants the AO the power to conduct a comprehensive fresh investigation into the assessee's financial position. When an assessment is set aside "de novo" (meaning from scratch), the AO regains his original plenary powers to assess the entire income of the assessee on the basis of all available material that comes to light during the course of proper investigation. B. Distinguishing Between the CIT(A)'s Power and the AO's Power in Set-Aside Proceedings The assessee has invoked Sardari Lal Co. v. CIT (251 ITR 864), a Delhi HC Full Bench decision which holds that the CIT(A) cannot discover and enhance assessment on the basis of a "new source of income" not considered by the original AO in the original assessment. However, this principle applies only to the CIT(A)'s appellate powers under Section 251(1)(a) (to enhance assessment), not to the AO's powers in set-aside proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....very is lawful (the documents were lawfully seized), * Investigation is proper (the AO called company books, confronted the AR, recorded assessee's statement), and * Opportunity is given (the assessee was offered multiple opportunities to explain). All three conditions are satisfied in the present case. D. Why "Sardari Lal" Does Not Apply: Sardari Lal dealt with the CIT(A)'s power under Section 251(2) to enhance an assessment without prior notice. The Court held that the CIT(A) cannot discover new sources without notice. The principle is about procedural fairness in appellate enhancement, not about the scope of the AO's powers in a fresh assessment directed by the appellate authority. Moreover, when an assessment is set aside, the AO must make assessment "in accordance with the directions given by the appellate authority." But "directions" do not mean the AO is limited only to the specific items mentioned; rather, the AO must follow the spirit of the directions. If the CIT(A) has directed "proper investigation" and "affording opportunity," the AO must conduct a thorough investigation and give fair opportunity-not a limited investigati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e absence of satisfactory explanations, made reasonable inferences from the entries' pattern, notation, and cross-references. This was NOT a cursory or inadequate investigation. This was a thorough, multi-layered investigation with multiple opportunities for the assessee to explain. C. Affording Due Opportunity: The AO's Actions: The assessee was afforded ample opportunity: 1. Statement on 10.12.1993: During post-search operations, the assessee's statement was recorded, and he explained that the documents were his personal office notes relating to the company. 2. Statement on 23.03.1998: Over four years later, when the same documents were formally shown to him during assessment proceedings, the assessee was again given an opportunity to explain. He repeated his earlier explanation and claimed he couldn't remember details after such a long lapse. 3. Offered to Examine Company Books: The assessee was explicitly offered the opportunity to examine MMLSR's books to show that the entries matched company transactions. He refused. The assessee's repeated refusals to provide satisfactory explanations cannot be con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f law. o The test is whether the material provides a rational basis for the AO's conclusion. 2. Section 68 Does Not Invoke the Evidence Act: o Section 68 of the Income-tax Act permits charging unexplained credits to income where: a. A sum is found credited in the books of account maintained by the assessee, AND b. The assessee offers no explanation or an unsatisfactory explanation. The section does NOT require that the books be in a particular form or satisfy Evidence Act standards. The term "books of account" in the income-tax context means any record wherein the assessee has recorded credits, whether in a bound register, loose sheets, or even digital records. 3. Case Law Support: S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT (82 ITD 85, Bombay Tribunal): The Tribunal held that loose papers, even if not technically "books of account" under the Evidence Act, can be relied upon in income-tax assessment if they show systematic entries of receipts and payments. The standard is "preponderance of probabilities and human conduct," not strict Evidence Act rules. K.P. Verghese v. CIT (131 ITR 597, Supreme Court): The Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hen an assessee, having been afforded opportunity, fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for entries in documents he admits to having created, the AO is justified in making an inference based on the available material. This is exactly what the AO did. The AO's inference that the figures represented the assessee's personal capital and income is rational and supported by the pattern of entries. E. The CIT(A)'s Error: The CIT(A), by importing the strict Evidence Act standard from the criminal case of V C. Shukla, effectively imposed a standard of proof higher than required in income-tax assessment. The CIT(A) demanded that the AO produce "conclusive evidence" and "corroboration," standards that are applicable in criminal or civil litigation but not in income-tax assessment. The correct standard is whether the seized documents, viewed in light of the assessee's own admissions and the AR's denials, provide a rational basis for the AO's inference. They clearly do." 14. Further, she submitted as under: "A. The Statutory Requirement: Section 68 of the Income-tax Act provides: "Where any sum is found' credited in the books of an as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000 = Rs. 22,31,80,000. The quantification methodology is sound. The assessee has provided no alternative explanation for these figures. In the absence of explanation, the figures as deciphered by the AO must stand. D. Distinguishing Assessee's Reliance on Case Law: The assessee has relied on various judgments to argue that assessment cannot be made on "presumptions," "conjectures," or "mere guess work." However, the AO's assessment in this case is not based on presumptions or guesswork; it is based on: 1. Documents created by the assessee himself (admitted handwriting) 2. Systematic entries showing a pattern of business-like recordkeeping ..The assessee's own admissions (family concerns, wife mentioned in entries) 4. Denials from other sources (AR's denial of company connection) 5. Corroborating circumstances (property purchase agreements with significant discrepancies in consideration, Enforcement Directorate's findings of hawala activities) This assessment is not on suspicion; it is on available material. E. Burden of Proof in Income-Tax Assessment It is well settled ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee refuses to provide coherent explanations. 5. The assessee refuses to examine corroborating documents (company books). In such circumstances, the burden of clarification falls squarely on the assessee, and his failure constitutes an unsatisfactory explanation under Section 68. VI. ON PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS (NATURAL JUSTICE) A. The CIT(A)'s "Hasty Completion" Argument: The assessee had been given ample opportunity to explain the seized documents, first during post-search operations in December 1993 and again during the detailed statement recorded on 23.03.1998. Additional time or additional opportunities, once the assessee has stated his position, would not cure the merits of the assessment B. The "Rejection of Explanation Without Reasons" Argument: The assessee argues that the AO rejected his explanation without recording reasons. This argument is factually incorrect. The assessment order explicitly addresses the assessee's explanation (that the documents related to company transactions) and records reasons for rejection: 1. The AR's categorical denial. 2. The absence of these entries in the company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anation was evasive and contradicted by the AR's denial and company books. The addition under Section 68 is justified. 3. Evidentiary: The strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to income-tax assessment. The standard is "reasonable satisfaction" based on "preponderance of probabilities." The seized documents meet this standard. 4. Procedural: The assessee was afforded ample opportunity to explain. His failure to do so, combined with his refusal to examine corroborating documents, constitutes an unsatisfactory explanation. B. Implications of Accepting Assessee's Arguments: If the Tribunal accepts the assessee's arguments: 1. The AO's power to conduct fresh investigation would be severely curtailed, effectively converting a "de novo" assessment into a "limited" assessment confined to original issues. 2. Any discovery of new material during the course of a fresh assessment would be deemed beyond jurisdiction, regardless of how significant or probative. 3. Income-tax assessment would be effectively governed by the strict rules of the Evidence Act, depriving the AO of the flexibility needed in assessment practi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pass fresh order is derived by the assessing officer from the order passed by an appellate authority, the scope and jurisdiction of the assessing officer to pass fresh order will have to be seen with reference to: (a) the specific findings/ directions given by the appellate authority; and (b) powers vested in the appellate authority since the appellate authority cannot grant any authority/ power to the assessing officer that does not vest in the appellate authority itself. In the facts of the present case, it will kindly be noticed that the original assessment was set aside by the CIT(A) to the assessing officer on the ground that proper opportunity was not given to the assessee before making ad-hoc addition of Rs. 40 lakhs on the basis of some information allegedly received about seizure of some cash. The said information is totally unrelated to seized annexures, which undisputedly were, in the set aside proceedings, received by the assessing officer for the first time from the Investigation Circle. To put it simply, the Revenue accepts that CIT(A) has, in the appellate proceedings, no power to introduce a new source of income. As a necessary se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nhance the income by going beyond the points which were not investigated by the assessing officer or the CIT(A); the assessing officer, in the set aside proceedings, had no jurisdiction to consider/ enhance the income of the assessee on new points/ issues; and b) addition has been made in respect of an altogether new source of income, which is clearly contrary to the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sardari Lal (supra). In view of the aforesaid, it is the respectful submission of the assessee that the assessing officer clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in making addition of Rs. 22,31,80,000 and order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition calls for being confirmed. That apart, even if the assessing officer had to make addition as aforesaid on the basis of information received pursuant to search conducted in the case of Shyam Garments, the same could have, if at all, been made by undertaking certain fresh proceedings in accordance with law. However, the assessing officer sought to usurp jurisdiction, which it did not have, to consider the fresh material in the set aside proceedings and went beyond the reason for which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pportunity was not given to the assessee before making ad-hoc addition of Rs. 40 lakhs on the basis of some information allegedly received about seizure of some cash. However, the assessing officer, completely digressing from the said issue and without judiciously appreciating the scope and jurisdiction of the set aside proceedings, proceeded to make astronomically high ad-hoc and baseless addition of Rs. 22,31,80,000 under section 68 of the Act in respect of altogether new source of income. In view of the above, it is submitted that the assessing officer did not, as demonstrated above, comply but in fact transgressed the directions of the CIT(A). Re (III): Applicability of Evidence Act In the written submission dated 08.01.2026, the Revenue has further contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on the basis of unauthenticated/ unverified loose papers in so far as the Evidence Act has no applicability in respect of income tax proceedings. In this regard, it is submitted that it is trite law that no addition can be made on the basis of unauthenticated/ unverified loose papers, which have no evidentiary value in the eyes on law. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., upon being confronted with the seized documents during post-search proceedings on 10.12.1993 and again during assessment proceedings on 23.03.1998 (pages 9-18 of the paper book), the assessee consistently submitted that: a) the transactions, if any, recorded in the seized papers did not pertain to him in his personal capacity; b) the notings primarily related to transactions concerning properties and shares of M/s Madan Mohan Lall Sriram Pvt. Ltd. (DCM Group), where the assessee was employed; and c) the inferences sought to be drawn by the Department regarding the quantum or nature of the figures recorded were emphatically denied. Thus, the assessee repeatedly and unequivocally denied that the seized documents represented any financial transactions of his own. Despite this, the impugned addition of Rs.22.31 crores has been made merely on the basis of the seized papers and conjectural inferences drawn therefrom, without any independent or corroborative evidence to establish receipt of any undisclosed income or cash. It is submitted that such addition is patently illegal and unsustainable in law. Further, the existence of "books of accou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment afresh as per law. The Ld DR vehemently argued that the AO gets the authority to redo the assessment comprehensively from the directions of Ld CIT(A) as the Ld CIT(A) has power to do so vide his power u/s 251 of the Act. However, the facts brought to our notice clearly indicate that the AO was informed about the new material found during the search in the case of third party and the evidence proves the involvement of the assessee in the alleged transactions. We noticed that the impugned assessment order was passed on 31.03.1998, the provisions as existed at that point of time are applicable. The amended provisions from 01.07.1995 to 31.05.2003, the relevant provisions applicable were 158BC, as per which the AO had to complete the search assessment in Block of 10 years and only for computation of undisclosed income. Since the information received by the AO from the investigation wing after the search in the case of Shyam Garment Group on 1.10.1993 and the assessee's statement was recorded on 10.12.1993. That being the case, the pending assessment which was set aside, the AO should have completed the assessment u/s 143(3) only on the basis of information already available on rec....