TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076977970(1) Dated: 12.06.2025 DCIT, CC- 20 New Delhi Dated 31.05.2023 6238/D/25 2019-20 CIT(A)-27 New Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076978329(1) Dated: 12.06.2025 DCIT, CC- 20 New Delhi Dated 31.05.2023 6239/D/25 2020-21 CIT(A)-27 New Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076978752(1) Dated: 12.06.2025 DCIT, CC- 20 New Delhi Dated 31.05.2023 6240/D/25 2021-22 CIT(A)-27 New Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076979535(1) Dated: 12.06.2025 DCIT, CC- 20 New Delhi Dated 28.03.2023 6241/D/25 2022-23 CIT(A)-27 New Delhi DIN & Order No : ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1076979739(1) Dated: 12.06.2025 DCIT, CC- 20 New Delhi Dated 19.06.2023 2. Heard and perused the records. The present appeals arise from a common search on ALE group of cases conducted on 09.02.2022 at the business premises of the Appellant, Design Workshops Private Limited, a company engaged in the business of purchase and sales of premium furniture. Simultaneous search and seizure operations were also carried out at the premises of several furniture dealers in Delhi on the same date by the Income-tax Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above essential ingredients, the seized documents remain merely pieces of information and dumb documents incapable of giving rise to taxable income. Reliance is placed on the following case laws on the proposition that "no addition can be made on mere hypothetical considerations and, on the basis of dumb document without any corroboration": * 39 ITD 183 (Del) Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO * 19 TTJ 546 (Gauhati) Kularanjan Pathak vs. ITO * 79 TTJ 1 (Jodh) JRC Bhandari Vs. ACIT * (1998) 3 SCC 410 CBI vs. V C. Shukla * 70 TTJ (Ahd) 122 Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT * 84 ITR 222(Punj) Chiranji Lal Steel & Rolling Mills vs. CIT * 88 TTJ (Chd) 394 Punjab Traders vs. ITO * 69 ITD 336 Jaya Shetty vs. ACIT * 97 ITR 696 (Bom) ACIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar * 41 ITD449 (Cal) ACIT vs. Shri RadheyShyam Poddar * 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (tm) S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT 6. Further, it is submitted by ld. Sr. Counsel that both Learned AO and CIT (A) have failed to appreciate the fact that all the employees and directors on whose statements reliance was placed, had retracted their statements before the Invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO was to establishes that the alleged entries contained in the seized papers represent genuine business transactions actually completed during the relevant assessment years and yes the burden of establishing undisclosed income continues to remain upon the Revenue notwithstanding the fact that the assessment arises pursuant to a search. There is no irrebuttable presumption that every document found represents taxable income. The statutory presumption attached to seized material is rebuttable, only once the same reflects a transaction in entirety. Where alleged incriminating is not self contained or speaking and ld. AO relies on same by way of reasoned inferences, then such inferences should be independently, sustainable under law, so that they can be examined on scales of probability, at stage of appellate authority too. Ld. AO should demonstrate, to some extent ownership of the document, that how under ordinary course of business or impugned transaction the said documents were maintained and the content was consciously recorded by reference to identifiable parties, their status and obligations under law. The document should reflect some nexus between the entries and taxable income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of search nor any cash was found during the course of search. Ld. Sr. Counsel has made a pertinent contention that Inter State Sales were made to aforesaid party and that too E Way Bills with GST and there were no cash sales made to the said party since the goods are subject to frequent checks on State borders and sales cannot be made outside books with regards to interstate sales. Learned AO failed to appreciate the fact that though in AY 2018-19 document was not confronted to any employee with regards to the impugned assessment year, however, for subsequent assessment years with regards to similar documents all the employees and directors had retracted their statements before the Investigation Wing which were never rebutted neither investigated further by learned AO. In these circumstances, the Whatsapp messages in isolation cannot amount to conclusive evidence, as assessee claims that said were the discussions with parties and so cannot be held to be actual sales and when exact details with regards to sales made were provided to learned AO and even then no enquiry or investigation whatsoever was made by learned AO to establish as to whether any cash sales were made by ass....