TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,76,09,243/- made on account of unaccounted cash receipts from flat sales, without properly appreciating the evidences gathered during the course of search and post-search enquiries. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the "median rate" method adopted by the Assessing Officer was based on surrounding circumstances, market realities, and corroborative material. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that WhatsApp chats are inadmissible evidence for want of certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, without appreciating that such material can be used as corroborative evidence in income-tax proceedings. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the evidentiary value of statements recorded during search, merely on the ground of subsequent retraction, without appreciating that such retractions were not supported by credible evidence. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.18,87,00,000/- made towards unexplained cash payment for purchase of Vadapalani land, without appreciating that the seized material and surrounding circumstances clearly indicated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate office and other premises of the group, various electronic devices, loose sheets, books of account and other documents were found and seized. 5. During the course of search, mobile phones belonging to certain sales personnel were examined. The search party noticed certain WhatsApp conversations between the sales personnel and prospective/existing customers. According to the Revenue, the said conversations indicated negotiations regarding payment of a portion of the sale consideration in cash, over and above the consideration recorded in the books of account. Similar conversations were stated to have been found in the mobile phone of another sales manager. 6. The search party also relied upon certain loose sheets containing particulars such as unit numbers, "actual price", "final price", car parking charges and other details. On the basis of the difference between the figures appearing therein, the Revenue inferred that the consideration actually agreed with certain customers was higher than the consideration ultimately recorded in the books of account. 7. In the course of search proceedings, statements u/s. 132(4) of the Act were recorded from various employees and off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a standard discount of 5%, the balance difference was treated as representing alleged cash receipts. On this basis, the Revenue worked out aggregate alleged unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 31,43,48,171/- for the period covering assessment years 2016-17 to 2023-24, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,76,09,243/- was attributed to the assessee for the assessment year 2023-24. 13. The AO accordingly issued a show-cause notice dated 19.12.2024, proposing to bring the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,76,09,243/- to tax as undisclosed/unaccounted income of the assessee. 14. In response, the assessee categorically denied having received any unaccounted consideration in cash. It was submitted that the quantification made by the AO rested entirely upon assumptions, presumptions and estimates and that the WhatsApp conversations relied upon by the Department did not establish actual payment or receipt of any cash consideration. 15. The assessee further explained that variations in the sale prices of apartments were attributable to several commercial factors, including negotiated discounts, location and orientation of the units, stage of construction, bulk bookings, market conditions, commercial expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n "14.5 x 3.70 = 53.65", which was interpreted by the Revenue as representing 14.5 grounds of land valued at Rs. 3.70 crore per ground, aggregating to Rs. 53.65 crore. The same noting contained further figures under the descriptions "Cheque" and "Cash". The Revenue interpreted these figures as representing Rs. 23.63 crore by cheque Rs. 18.87 crore in cash and a further balance amount of Rs. 11.15 crore. 23. An image of the aforesaid handwritten noting was also stated to have been found stored in the mobile phone of Shri A. Gunasekaran and was imaged during the search and inventorised under Annexure ANN/SA/AGS/ED/S. 24. A statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act was recorded from Shri A. Gunasekaran on 06.11.2023. He acknowledged that the handwritten notings were made by him and that they related to the proposed/actual transaction of sale of land to the assessee at the rate of Rs. 3.70 crore per ground. He also referred to receipt of certain amounts through banking channels. Insofar as the figure of Rs. 18.87 crore appearing against cash was concerned, his statement, as understood by the assessee, was that the said amount represented an amount which he expected to receive and not cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtunity to cross-examine Shri A. Gunasekaran had been afforded before using his statement and the document found from his possession adversely against the assessee. 31. The AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. According to him, the notebook was a contemporaneous record maintained by Shri A. Gunasekaran and the fact that the cheque entries appearing therein substantially corresponded with the banking transactions lent credibility to the remaining entries, including the alleged cash component. 32. The AO further held that the explanation offered in the statement of Shri A. Gunasekaran did not satisfactorily account for the detailed bifurcation of the amounts appearing in the notebook. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee in relation to third-party documents and loose sheets were held to be distinguishable on facts. 33. On the aforesaid reasoning, the AO concluded that the assessee had paid Rs. 18,87,00,000/- in cash, over and above the accounted consideration, towards purchase of the Vadapalani property and that the source thereof remained unexplained. The said amount was, therefore, brought to tax as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 34. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Investigation Wing. 40. According to the assessee, the Department worked out a so-called "median rate per sq. ft." from the ERP data and treated such median rate as the actual selling price of the flats. Wherever the actual sale consideration recorded in the books, registered sale deeds and customer agreements was lower than the assumed median rate, the differential amount was presumed to represent cash consideration received outside the books. 41. The assessee submitted that such "median rate" was neither found nor seized during the search nor reflected in any contemporaneous document maintained by the assessee. It was merely a post-search computational exercise undertaken by the Investigation Wing by utilizing the assessee's own ERP data. No purchaser was examined to establish payment of consideration over and above the registered consideration and no receipt, ledger, diary, parallel account or other evidence showing receipt of cash was found. 42. The assessee further submitted that the Investigation Wing, by adopting the aforesaid methodology, quantified alleged cash receipts of Rs. 102,04,27,807/- in respect of eight projects of various group entities sprea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of evidence of suppressed receipts, the substitution of documented sale consideration by an estimated "actual selling price" was contrary to settled principles governing assessment of business income. 47. The assessee extensively challenged the reliance placed upon loose sheets stated to have been seized from the residence of Shri R. Swaminathan, Vice-President-CRM, and upon his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. It was submitted that the search at the residence of Shri R. Swaminathan continued for several days and that no books of account, ERP data, customer files or other company records were maintained or found at his residence. Particular reliance was placed upon his answer to Question No. 9 of the sworn statement, wherein he categorically stated that no books of account relating to the Appaswamy group were maintained at his residence and that the books were maintained by the accounts department at the corporate office. Notwithstanding the above, on the last day of the search, certain "Buyer Abstract Analysis" sheets relating to the projects "Azure The Oceanic" and "Clover by the River" were stated to have been produced by Shri R. Swaminathan and seized as ANN/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded without examination of the deponents or contrary evidence. 51. The assessee further contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that the statements recorded during search, particularly when subsequently retracted, could not constitute the sole basis for an addition in the absence of independent incriminating material. Reliance was placed upon CBDT Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv.II) dated 10.03.2003, whereby the Department had cautioned against obtaining confessions during search proceedings and emphasized that assessments should be based upon credible evidence collected during search. The assessee also relied upon, inter alia, Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), CIT v. S.Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), affirmed by the Supreme Court, and CIT v. Smt. S.Jayalakshmi Ammal [2016] 74 taxmann.com 35 (Madras), to contend that an admission was not conclusive and that an addition could not be sustained merely upon an uncorroborated statement. 52. The assessee also disputed the reliance placed upon certain WhatsApp conversations retrieved from the mobile phones of sales personnel. It was contended that the messages did not evidence any actua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his wife in March 2023. The transaction was recorded in the books at Rs. 35.52 crore, including stamp duties, and, according to the assessee, the entire consideration was paid through normal banking channels and was supported by the registered sale deed and bank statements. 55. It was specifically submitted that, despite simultaneous searches upon the assessee group and the vendor, no material evidencing payment of Rs. 18.87 crore in cash was recovered from any premises of the assessee. Neither the Managing Director nor any employee of the assessee was questioned during the search regarding such alleged payment, nor was any post-search enquiry undertaken in this regard. 56. The assessee placed considerable reliance upon the sworn statement of Shri A.Gunasekaran recorded on 06.11.2023. It was pointed out that, in response to Questions Nos.33 and 34, the vendor himself had explained that the amount mentioned under the expression "cash" in the loose sheet represented only his expectation and that no cash had actually been received from the assessee. He confirmed receipt of Rs. 23.63 crore by cheque from the assessee company towards his share of the land. The assessee therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the document recovered from his premises. No such opportunity was afforded. It was contended that reliance upon third-party material without affording an effective opportunity of cross-examination constituted violation of the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed, inter alia, upon Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) and the other authorities cited in the written submissions. 61. Without prejudice to the factual challenge to the alleged cash payment, the assessee further contended that the essential jurisdictional conditions for invoking section 69A of the Act were absent. It was submitted that no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article was found in the ownership or possession of the assessee which was not recorded in its books of account. The addition represented merely an alleged cash payment inferred by the AO from a third-party loose sheet. Accordingly, it was contended that section 69A of the Act could not be invoked to tax an assumed expenditure/payment when the assessee had not been found to be the owner of any unexplained money or valuable article. On this independent ground also, the assessee sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, no such material has been brought on record by the AO to substantiate the allegation in the present case. 6.2.19 Further, the AO has not relied upon any parallel or duplicate books of account, cash ledgers, diaries, registers or electronic data evidencing systematic recording of alleged cash collections. No buyer-wise cash receipts, acknowledgements, side agreements or documents reflecting payment of consideration outside the registered sale deeds have been identified or produced. Importantly, the assessment does not cite even a single instance where a customer has admitted to having paid cash to the appellant, nor has any purchaser been examined or confronted to corroborate the allegation of unaccounted receipts. The material relied upon by the AO primarily consists of internal communications, loose working papers and statements recorded from employees. However, these materials, in the absence of corroboration, do not by themselves establish actual receipt of cash. The assessment order does not demonstrate a direct and proximate nexus between such material and the alleged undisclosed income. There is no linkage shown between the figures referred to in such material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant. In arriving at the said conclusion, the AO has disregarded the primary documentary evidence produced by the appellant, namely the registered sale deeds executed in favour of individual purchasers, the corresponding sale agreements entered into with customers, the contemporaneous entries in the appellant's ERP and accounting systems, and the bank statements evidencing receipt of consideration through banking channels. These documents collectively form a complete and consistent chain of evidence demonstrating the actual consideration received on sale of the flats. The undersigned notes that the assessment order does not record any finding that these documents are fabricated, unreliable or otherwise untrue. There is also no allegation that the consideration mentioned in the registered documents was understated with the consent or connivance of the purchasers. 6.2.22 A close reading of the assessment order further reveals that the "median rate" adopted by the AO does not emanate from any seized document evidencing completed transactions at such rate. The AO has not identified any specific document recovered during the course of search which records sale of a flat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, the date of sale, prevailing demand-supply conditions in the market, and the bargaining strength and negotiating ability of individual customers. Consequently, uniformity in pricing is neither commercially feasible nor expected, and variations in sale consideration across different units are an inherent feature of the business. 6.2.25 It was further submitted that, apart from these project-specific variables, the appellant's pricing decisions were significantly influenced by external macroeconomic factors. The AR specifically drew attention to the market slowdown in the real estate sector and the unprecedented disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which severely impacted demand, liquidity, and customer sentiment. During this period, developers across the industry were compelled to offer discounts, incentives, and negotiated rates to attract buyers, liquidate inventory, and maintain cash flows necessary for meeting construction and financial commitments. The appellant, being no exception, had to align its pricing strategy with these prevailing market conditions. The AR emphasized that these factual and commercial explanations were duly placed before the AO during....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sold". Thus, it can be held that it is well settled that the AO cannot sit in the armchair of the businessman and determine the price at which a product should be sold, unless there is clear and cogent evidence of suppression or understatement of consideration. 6.2.27 On a careful consideration of the entire material on record, the undersigned finds that the addition has been made solely on the basis of an assumed and notional median rate, without reference to any incriminating material evidencing receipt of higher consideration and without rejection of the books of account. The sale consideration recorded by the appellant is supported by statutory documents, contemporaneous accounting records and bank receipts, and no defect has been pointed out therein. In the absence of evidence establishing that the appellant actually received consideration in excess of what is recorded, the substitution of recorded sale prices with an estimated rate is not legally permissible. Therefore, it is held that the action of the AO in adopting an assumed median selling price and computing alleged undisclosed income on that basis is not supported by facts or law. The addition, being ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under. 15. In Q.35 and Q.36 of the sworn statement recorded trom me, the authorized officer had shown me a copy of sworn statement recorded from Shri R Swaminathan and also presented a tabulation allegedly prepared by him containing a chart capturing certain amounts as sale consideration received in cash and sought my explanation. Towards this, I requested time to verify the same to provide my explanation. in this respect, I hereby state that we have been selling apartments to various people at different discounts as clearly explained early in this letter, which was on a need based and considering the cash flow requirement and also by taking into account the relationship with old/repeat customers & goodwill base. I further state that wherever the apartments were sold at different prices, they represent only the discounts offered to them and does not represent any cash consideration received for sale of flats. The offer of discounts is resorted to mobilize the cash flows, to speed up the sales, to manage project overheads, payment of interest and repayment of principal to the bankers in time to keep up our reputation. This method of offering discounts is very much preva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for cross examination nor confronted, it is not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the same". The above view was followed in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT(1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) in which it was held that "once an affidavit is furnished, it should be presumed to be a correct statement of facts. If these facts are to be controverted, either the deponent must be examined or evidence contrary to facts must be led. In the absence of these the affidavits could not be ignored". By applying this settled position of the law to the facts of the present case, the undersigned is of the view that the AO was not justified in placing reliance on retracted employee statements, without further verification and without independent corroboration. In view of the above findings, the undersigned holds that the action of the AO in relying upon the sworn statements of employees, which were subsequently retracted and remained uncorroborated, is not sustainable. Such statements, in the absence of independent supporting evidence and without affording the appellant an opportunity of cross-examination, cannot be used to sustain the addition. Accordingly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions to which the extrapolation has been applied. In the absence of such nexus, the extrapolation undertaken lacks evidentiary support and cannot be sustained. The approach adopted by the AO results in quantification of income based on assumptions and guesswork rather than on real income supported by evidence. Such arbitrary extrapolation is not permissible under the scheme of the Act, particularly in the context of a search assessment where additions must be firmly rooted in material unearthed during the search. Therefore, it is held that the quantification of the addition, being based on illogical extrapolation and mechanical application of assumptions without transaction-specific seized material, is unsustainable both on facts and in law. In addition, during the course of appellate proceedings, the AR assailed the very basis of the estimation made by the AO by, contending that the appellant maintains regular and audited books of account in the ordinary course of business, supported by a robust ERP system, registered sale deeds, customer agreements and complete banking records, and that at no point has the AO recorded any dissatisfaction regarding their correctness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2....... 6.3.3...... 6.3.4...... 6.3.5...... 6.3.6...... 6.3.7 The undersigned has carefully examined the issue under consideration. As evident in the assessment order passed, it can be seen that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 18.87 Crores solely on the basis of a loose sheet seized from the residence of a third party (vendor), namely Shri A. Gunasekaran. On a careful examination of the assessment order, the seized material, and the submissions placed on record, the following aspects clearly emerge: * Document seized from third party - no presumption against appellant. * Vendor's sworn statement negates cash payment. * Entire consideration paid through banking channels * No cross-examination granted. * Section 69A wrongly invoked. The above aspects are dealt here as under. 6.3.8..... 6.3.9..... 6.3.10.... 6.3.11 The undersigned finds that the loose sheet relied upon by the AO was admittedly seized from a third party and not from the appellant's premises or possession. Further, the AO has not brought on record any material to establish that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Presumptions requiring rebuttal were once drawn, there is no discretion vested in the AO to reject the appellant's claim once this initial burden has been met. As evident in the assessment order, the AO has not chosen to examine the appellant u/s 131 of the Act and cross verify the findings of the search. In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence linking the loose sheet to actual transactions of the appellant, the reliance placed on such a document is legally untenable. 6.3.14 It may be appreciated that the said loose sheet relied upon by the AO was neither seized from the premises of the Appellant nor was the same found to be in the handwriting of the Appellant. Such material seized in the case of a third party which is not in the hand writing of the Appellant does not constitute adequate evidence to draw any adverse inference against the Appellant, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sant Lal [2020] 118 taxmann com 432 (Del), wherein it was held therein that "where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the businessmen or tax evaders may choose to record minimum details on a document and keep the rest in their memory. It is the duty of the AO to carry out necessary investigations by correlating the impugned document with other documents seized, with regular books of account, with record kept by outside agencies, such as banks or financial institutions or debtors/creditors and finally, by recording the statements of concerned parties so as to fill up the gaps in confirming the inference arising from the documents for a proper charge of tax. Such correlation is necessary unless the document is capable of speaking giving full details so as to enable any intelligent person to find out the nature of transaction, the year of transaction, the ownership of the transaction and quantum thereof. Even in that situation, it is necessary to give opportunity to the assessee to offer his explanation and investigation be carried out to strengthen the direct inference arising from this document." 6.3.17 The proposition that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of entries in loose sheets found in the premises of a third party without bringing on record independent evidence to corro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and also failed to prove the deployment of unaccounted money by the seller by any form of evidence. Under these circumstances, based on paper jottings as conclusive evidence on money cannot be brought to tax as income from undisclosed sources." 6.3.19 As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC): "As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence, a court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent actual cash receipts or completed transactions. According to the AR, this clarification directly strikes at the foundation of the AO's inference that the loose sheet evidences unaccounted cash receipts. The AR further submitted that the explanation offered by the deponent is both plausible and consistent with the nature of the document itself. The loose sheet is an informal paper containing rough noting(s), without dates, names of customers, signatures, mode of receipt or any indication that the figures were acted upon. The AR claimed that such documents are commonly used in business environments for planning, estimation or internal reference and cannot, without more, be equated with evidence of real income. When the author or custodian of such a document himself explains that the figures are only indicative and not actual, the evidentiary value of the document is substantially diluted. 6.3.23 It was also strongly contended by the AR that the AO has not brought on record any independent evidence to disprove or contradict the sworn statement of the deponent. The AR pointed out that in the absence of any such corroborative material, the sworn denial remains uncontrovert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.3.25 In the present case, neither the Investigation Officer nor the Assessing Officer had any occasion to confront the representatives of the appellant company with the alleged cash transaction during the course of the search or the assessment proceedings, nor has any material been brought on record to demonstrate the application or utilisation of the purported cash receipts. In the absence of any such confrontation or rebuttal, the sworn explanation furnished by the deponent remains unchallenged and cannot be brushed aside on mere conjecture or surmise. When the loose sheet is read in conjunction with the sworn statement of the person from whose premises it was seized, it does not establish the actual receipt of cash by the appellant. The categorical denial of cash receipt, having remained uncontroverted and unsupported by any contrary evidence, effectively demolishes the inference drawn by the AO, and therefore the reliance placed on the loose sheet to sustain the addition is misplaced and unsustainable in law. 6.3.26 During the appellate proceedings, the AR made comprehensive submissions contesting the allegation of cash payment in respect of the transaction invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s premises, project sites and other connected locations. Despite such an exhaustive search operation, no evidence of any cash payment made to Shri. Gunasekaran was found or seized. The AR contended that had there been any cash component in a transaction of such magnitude, some trace of its receipt, movement or utilisation would necessarily have been unearthed during the search. Further, the AR pointed out that the AO did not examine or record any statement from the counterparty to the transaction admitting receipt of cash over and above the recorded consideration. The AR asserted that the Investigation Officer having found evidence at the residence of Shri. Gunasekaran, the same was not confronted with the Managing Director or any other accountable persons of the appellant company. 6.3.28 The undersigned after carefully considering the submissions advanced by the AR, examined the registered sale deed, verified the corresponding bank statements, and perused the findings recorded by the AO. On such examination, it is evident that the registered sale deed unequivocally records payment of the entire consideration of Rs. 35.52 Crores through recognised banking channels. The mod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t an opportunity to confront or test the same. Such reliance, in the absence of cross- examination, is contrary to the principles of natural justice. When any adverse material originating from a third party is relied upon to support an addition, the principles of fairness and natural justice mandate that the assessee must be afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity to cross-examine the concerned person. At this juncture, it is more significant to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3/52 GST 355, where in it has been held as under: "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 8.40 In view of the above judicial precedents (supra) and the reasons elaborately set out above, we are of the considered view that, the AO's failure to allow the assessee opportunit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in respect of which the appellant is found to be the owner, then the provisions of section 69A will squarely apply. Further there are two essential ingredients, i.e. the assessee should be the owner and the other is that such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article found. Thus, to invoke the provisions, these two essentials things are to be taken into consideration. Further, the assessee should explain the nature and source to the satisfaction of the AO. In the case of the appellant, what the search team has found is not any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article but has come across only registered sale deed. 6.3.37 At the outset, the provisions of section 69A of the Act is a deeming provision and can be applied only when an assessee is found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles which are not recorded in the books of account and in respect of which the assessee either offers no explanation or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. Thus, the very foundation for invoking section 69A is the actual discovery and establishment of ownership of unrecorded money or valuable articles. The expression "found to be the owner" is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n on objective facts. Being a deeming provision, section 69A of the Act must be strictly construed and can be applied only when the precise conditions laid down therein are satisfied. It cannot be invoked on the basis of assumptions, estimates or inferences drawn from indirect material. In the present case, the absence of any finding that the appellant was the owner of unrecorded money is fatal to the application of section 69A of the Act. 6.3.40 In this regard, it is significant to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D.N.Singh [2023 (5) TMI 746; 454 ITR 595], wherein it has been held that fixed deposit receipts seized during search are merely documents evidencing debt due to the assessee and would not carry any inherent market value and hence cannot be brought within the meaning of the term 'other valuable article'. 6.3.41 The Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhagwandas Narayandas has held as under :- "... the question is whether the fixed deposit receipts and documents of title relating to an immovable property are the things or articles which can be evaluated in terms of money. Obviously, a document of title relating to an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 69A of the Act. In view of this the undersigned is not inclined to accept the observation of the AO to treat the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 6.3.44 In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act without satisfying the mandatory preconditions prescribed under the Act. The appellant was not found to be the owner of any unrecorded money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles. Consequently, the invocation of section 69A is wholly misconceived in law, and the addition made thereunder is unsustainable. 6.3.45 In view of the detailed discussion made supra on various aspects and the judicial decision(s) relied on, the grounds raised by the appellant upon the addition of Rs. 18.87 Crores are here by treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 18,87,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act for the AY 2023-24." 64. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO towards the alleged undisclosed income arising from the sale of flats and the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69/69A of the Act, the Revenue has preferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fluence had been made before any authority and that the panchanamas recorded that the search proceedings had been conducted in an orderly manner. In support of these submissions, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the decisions in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 508 and B. Kishore Kumar v. DCIT. It was further contended that the similarity in the responses of employees discharging similar functions could not, by itself, render their statements unreliable; rather, according to the Revenue, the same supported the existence of a standardized practice followed by the assessee in relation to collection of cash from customers. 68. Adverting to the methodology adopted for quantification of the alleged undisclosed consideration, the Ld.DR submitted that the same was founded upon the seized ERP/CRM data and was further supported by the sworn statement of Shri Vijay Shyam. It was submitted that Shri Vijay Shyam had explained that any reduction exceeding 5% from the "Actual Price" represented the cash component received from customers. According to the Ld. DR, the AO had merely adopted the methodology emerging from the seized material and the statement of the concerned empl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndependently corroborated by the registered document and banking transactions, there was no justification for accepting such entries while simultaneously rejecting the corresponding cash entries contained in the very same document. According to the Ld. DR, the seized document was required to be read and appreciated as a whole and its evidentiary value could not be selectively accepted in respect of the accounted component while being rejected in respect of the alleged unaccounted component. 74. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not appreciated the statement of Shri A. Gunasekaran in its proper perspective. It was pointed out that Shri Gunasekaran had admitted the authorship of the notebook, the sale of the subject property to the assessee, the agreed consideration of Rs. 53.65 crores calculated at Rs. 3.70 crores per ground and receipt of Rs. 23.63 crores through banking channels. In the circumstances, the subsequent explanation of the vendor that the amount of Rs. 18.87 crores represented merely an "expectation", according to the Ld. DR, was inconsistent with the specific and precise monetary entries appearing in the contemporaneous record and was liable to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasoning contained in the assessment order. The Revenue has not brought before the Tribunal any fresh material capable of dislodging the categorical factual findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 80. The Ld. AR submitted that the very foundation of the Revenue's case is fundamentally defective. Despite an extensive search covering the corporate office, project sites, residences of directors and employees and examination of electronic devices and records, not a single piece of direct evidence was found demonstrating actual receipt of cash by the assessee from any purchaser of a flat. 81. The Ld.AR submitted that no unaccounted cash was found. No parallel cash book or ledger recording on-money receipts was unearthed. No receipt or acknowledgement for cash consideration was found. No customer admitted payment of cash to the assessee. No corresponding unexplained asset, expenditure or investment representing utilisation of the alleged cash receipts was detected. These crucial factual findings have been specifically recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). 82. The Ld. AR submitted that the Revenue seeks to overcome this fund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to the Ld. AR, there is no provision under the Act, recognised accounting principle or commercial rule under which a real-estate developer is prohibited from granting a discount exceeding 5%. The Revenue has also not demonstrated through purchaser-wise enquiry that whenever the discount crossed 5%, an equivalent amount was actually paid in cash. The Ld.AR submitted that the statement of an employee regarding an alleged 5% benchmark cannot convert a commercial pricing guideline into a statutory presumption of undisclosed income. 86. The Ld. AR emphasized that the regular books of account of the assessee have been accepted by the AO. Section 145(3) of the Act has not been invoked. No defect has been pointed out in the method of accounting. There is no mismatch demonstrated between the agreements, registered sale deeds, ERP records and banking receipts. According to the Ld.AR that having accepted the very books for turnover, expenditure and business results, the AO could not selectively disregard the recorded sale consideration and replace it by an assumed consideration derived through a post-search exercise. 87. The Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly found that su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies, discussions or negotiations regarding possible modes of payment. They do not establish that any particular purchaser actually paid cash, the quantum thereof, the date of payment, the person who received it or its subsequent utilisation. 93. The Ld.AR submitted that the Revenue's contention that WhatsApp chats constitute corroborative evidence begs the very question which requires proof. Corroboration necessarily presupposes the existence of a primary fact requiring corroboration. Where actual receipt of cash itself has never been proved, an ambiguous conversation cannot be elevated into corroboration of an unproved fact. The Ld.AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, correctly held that electronic communications, without a nexus to any specific customer payment or actual flow of unaccounted funds, cannot sustain the addition. 94. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Revenue has placed considerable emphasis upon the statement of the software implementation consultant that the ERP/CRM system technically permitted alteration of the sale price after booking. According to the Ld. AR, there is a fundamental distinction between technical capability and proof of misuse. Me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T(A)'s deletion of Rs. 1,76,09,243/- rests upon several independent factual findings: absence of direct evidence of cash receipt; absence of customer confirmation; absence of unaccounted assets or utilisation; acceptance of regular books; existence of registered sale documents and banking records; retraction of employee statements; absence of independent corroboration; and arbitrary extrapolation through a notional median rate. According to the Ld.AR that none of these findings has been shown by the Revenue to be perverse. The Ld.AR thus submitted that the first limb of the Revenue's appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed. 99. Turning to the second addition, the Ld. AR submitted that the entire case of the Revenue rests upon handwritten notings contained in a notebook found at the residence of the vendor, Shri A. Gunasekaran. The document was admittedly not found from the assessee. It was not written by the assessee or any of its directors or employees. There is no evidence that the assessee instructed the vendor to prepare it or adopted its contents. Consequently, the presumptions available under sections 132(4A)/292C of the Act, if otherwise applicable, operate agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC). Indeed, the assessee's case stands on a stronger footing because, unlike a case involving a vendor admitting additional consideration, the vendor here expressly denied actual receipt of the alleged cash amount. 103. The Ld. AR submitted that this is not merely a case where the Revenue lacks evidence. There is affirmative documentary evidence supporting the assessee. The registered sale deed records the consideration and the mode of payment. The corresponding payments are reflected in the bank statements and regular books of account. The Ld. CIT(A), after verification, found that the registered deed, bank statements and books were consistent and that no incriminating material indicating payment of cash had been found during search. According to the Ld.AR that the Revenue has not alleged that the registered instrument is sham or fabricated. Nor has any independent material been brought to displace its evidentiary value. Mere suspicion generated by a third-party notation cannot override contemporaneous statutory documentation supported by an established banking trail. 104. The Ld. AR submitted that an allegation involving cash payment of Rs. 18.87 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld. DR's contention that cross-examination was unnecessary because documentary material existed cannot be accepted. The crucial interpretation of the word "cash" and whether it represented an actual receipt depends upon the author of the document. Once the Revenue proposes to reject his explanation and use his document adversely against the assessee, the assessee's right to test such material assumes greater, not lesser, significance. 108. Without prejudice to the factual submissions, the Ld.AR strongly supported the independent finding of the Ld.CIT(A) regarding section 69A of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that Section 69A of the Act is a deeming provision whose conditions must be strictly fulfilled. The statutory requirement is that the assessee must be "found to be the owner" of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article not recorded in the books. Here, no unexplained money was found in the possession or ownership of the assessee. What was found was merely a notebook at the residence of a third party. The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has accordingly held that the foundational requirement for application of section 69A of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there is no perversity whatsoever in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). 112. In view of the foregoing submissions, the Ld.AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is a well-reasoned and speaking order based upon a proper appreciation of the material available on record. According to the Ld.AR that the Revenue has failed to demonstrate that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to any material on record or suffer from perversity. On the contrary, the additions made by the AO rest upon presumptions, extrapolations and uncorroborated inferences rather than proof of actual receipt or payment of unaccounted cash. Accordingly, it was prayed that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,76,09,243/- towards alleged unaccounted consideration from sale of flats and the addition of Rs. 18,87,00,000/- towards alleged cash payment in connection with acquisition of the Vadapalani property be upheld in toto and all the grounds raised by the Revenue be dismissed. The Ld.AR, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed in its entirety and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be affirmed. 113. We have heard the rival submissions advanced by bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rded from five employees, Buyer Abstract Analysis Reports, Excel workings found in a pen drive, ERP/CRM data, the statement of the software implementation consultant and the technical facility available in the ERP system for modification of sale price subsequent to the initial booking. 116. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment order, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the material placed before us. On such consideration, we are unable to accept the Revenue's contention that the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded as though the addition was founded solely upon the statements of employees. A reading of the impugned appellate order demonstrates that the Ld.CIT(A) separately examined the internal price sheets, the methodology based upon the alleged permissible discount of 5%, the ERP/CRM data, the employee statements and their subsequent retractions, the WhatsApp communications, the Buyer Abstract Analysis Reports, the regular books of account and, importantly, the absence of transaction-specific corroborative evidence establishing actual receipt of cash. The Ld.CIT(A) did not proceed on the basis that the materials relied upon by the AO did not exist; rathe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enchmark price, indicative selling rate or internal expectation before negotiations with the customer. The mere nomenclature employed in an internal document cannot, without corroborative evidence, establish that the amount mentioned therein was the consideration actually realised from the purchaser. 122. Significantly, the documents relied upon by the AO do not disclose the date on which the alleged cash was paid, the purchaser who made such payment, the person who received it on behalf of the assessee, the place or mode of delivery, or the manner in which such cash was thereafter accounted for, deployed or utilised. No corresponding cash receipt, acknowledgement, side agreement, parallel ledger or purchaser confirmation has been brought on record. 123. Thus, what emerges from the seized material is, at the highest, the existence of two different price figures. The further conclusion that the difference between those figures physically changed hands in cash is an inference drawn by the AO. Such material could undoubtedly constitute a basis for further purchaser-wise investigation, but the difference between two price figures cannot, without something more, constitute proof o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or documentary material has been brought to our notice which would establish 5% as an immutable dividing line between a genuine commercial discount and unaccounted cash consideration. No resolution of the Board of Directors, binding pricing policy, customer agreement or contemporaneous record has been identified to establish that the assessee was legally or commercially prohibited from granting discount beyond 5%. 129. Even assuming that an internal guideline contemplated discount ordinarily not exceeding 5%, departure from an internal pricing guideline cannot, ipso facto, result in undisclosed taxable income. The Revenue was still required to establish that the excess reduction in a particular transaction corresponded to an amount actually received from the concerned purchaser outside the books. It cannot be ignored that the price of a residential apartment may depend upon several commercial variables, including the floor, orientation, view, location within the project, stage of construction, timing of booking, prevailing demand, payment terms, bulk booking, repeat-customer relationship, referral concession, early-payment incentive, market conditions, inventory position and liq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is arithmetically derived from the Buyer Abstract Analysis Reports also overlooks an important distinction between existence of undisclosed income and quantification of undisclosed income. Once the factum of undisclosed receipt is established through reliable material, estimation may, in an appropriate case, be resorted to for determining its quantum. Estimation, however, cannot be employed to establish the very existence of the receipt. Mathematical precision in computation cannot validate an unproved factual premise. 133. The Ld. DR also relied upon the statement of the software implementation consultant to establish that the ERP/CRM system permitted alteration of the sale price subsequent to booking of a flat. The evidence, in our view, establishes no more than the technical capability of the software. The existence of an editing facility cannot, by itself, establish that the facility was actually used for suppressing cash receipts. Post-booking alterations may arise for several legitimate commercial reasons, including renegotiation, cancellation and rebooking, modification of payment schedules, grant of additional discount, correction of erroneous entries, change in speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot bridge the evidentiary gap between discussion and completed payment. At the highest, they reinforce a suspicion that cash was discussed in the sales environment; they do not establish that the impugned amount was actually received by the assessee. 137. The Revenue has placed substantial reliance upon statements recorded from five employees and contended that consistency in their statements established a standardised modus operandi. It was further submitted that the employees were confronted with seized material, that the search proceedings were conducted in an orderly manner, that the panchanamas did not record any allegation of coercion and that no contemporaneous complaint was made. There is no dispute that a statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act constitutes relevant evidence. At the same time, neither section 132(4) of the Act nor the general principles governing admissions render every statement conclusive and incapable of explanation. An admission is undoubtedly an important piece of evidence, but the weight to be attached thereto depends upon its nature and clarity, the knowledge and capacity of the maker, the circumstances in which it was made, the extent of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e placed by the Ld.DR upon Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India (supra) does not materially advance the case of the Revenue. The said decision arose in the context of a confession under the customs law and turned upon the particular nature and circumstances of the admission therein. It cannot be understood as laying down a universal proposition that every statement recorded during a search under the Income-tax Act, irrespective of the identity and knowledge of its maker, contents thereof, subsequent retraction and absence of corroboration, constitutes conclusive proof of a quantified undisclosed receipt. 142. Likewise, the decision in B.Kishore Kumar v. DCIT (supra) is distinguishable on facts. That case involved a clear and categorical admission by the assessee himself regarding undisclosed income, supported by printouts and other material, and the admission was not displaced by a prompt and substantiated retraction. In the case before us, the Revenue predominantly relies upon statements of employees concerning an alleged general practice; such statements were subsequently disputed; and no transaction-specific evidence has been brought on record proving the cash receipts qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... established by cogent evidence. Its significance in the present case arises because the primary factum of receipt itself remains unestablished. Where neither the source-side evidence, namely payment by purchasers, nor the destination-side evidence, namely receipt, possession or utilisation by the assessee, is available, the conclusion of actual receipt becomes substantially inferential. 146. It is also an undisputed factual position that the regular books of account were not rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act. No material defect in the method of accounting has been demonstrated. Nor has the AO established any mismatch between the final consideration reflected in the ERP system, customer agreements, registered sale deeds and banking receipts. 147. We find that the AO has substantially accepted the books for determining turnover, expenditure and business results, but has selectively substituted the sale consideration by adopting an assumed price based upon the impugned methodology. We do not propose to lay down any absolute proposition that an addition towards unaccounted receipt can never be made unless the books are formally rejected. Where direct and reliable evidence establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed through cogent material that the assessee actually received on-money from identified purchasers and thereafter proceeded to estimate its quantum. On the contrary, the existence of on-money itself has been inferred from price variations, and the same inference has thereafter been subjected to a mathematical formula. The resultant figure may possess arithmetic precision, but arithmetic precision cannot substitute evidentiary foundation. 150. Another significant aspect of the matter is that not even a single purchaser has been shown to have admitted payment of cash over and above the consideration disclosed in the registered documents. The AO has not identified any purchaser who stated that he or she paid on-money to the assessee, nor does the assessment order disclose purchaser-wise examination establishing such payment. Where the allegation is that the consideration recorded in registered documents and regular books does not represent the true consideration and that a portion thereof passed outside the books, some material concerning the payer, recipient, amount, date, manner of payment or other circumstance evidencing movement of the additional consideration would ordinarily....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,76,09,243/- does not reasonably and necessarily flow from the material relied upon by the AO. 154. We further find that the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding of fact that, notwithstanding the extensive search conducted at the business premises, project sites and residential premises of the directors and employees, no material was discovered directly establishing receipt of unaccounted cash consideration from purchasers of flats. Significantly, neither in the assessment order nor before us has the Revenue identified any seized material recording an actual purchaser-wise receipt of cash over and above the consideration accounted for in the regular books. The Revenue has also not demonstrated that the Ld.CIT(A) overlooked any material which conclusively or reasonably establishes such receipt. No perversity has been shown in the findings that there was no buyer-wise evidence, no purchaser admission, no parallel books and no corresponding evidence regarding receipt, possession or application of the alleged cash. 155. We also agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the materials relied upon by the AO, at the highest, furnish grounds for suspicion and further investigation. Once ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action and proof of a transaction occupy distinct evidentiary fields. Before an amount can be brought to tax as an actual undisclosed receipt, there must exist material reasonably establishing that such receipt, in fact, accrued or was received by the assessee. 158. In the present case, the foundational fact of actual receipt remains unproved. The AO has proceeded from price variation to presumed cash receipt and thereafter from presumed cash receipt to quantified undisclosed income. Such reasoning effectively employs estimation not merely for determining the quantum of established income but for establishing the very existence of income. In our considered opinion, such an approach cannot be sustained. We accordingly find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Ld.CIT(A). The findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) are based upon a proper appreciation of the evidentiary material and have not been displaced by the Revenue by bringing any cogent contrary material before us. We therefore concur with the Ld.CIT(A) that the AO failed to discharge the burden of establishing actual receipt of unaccounted cash consideration by the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) delet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. Authenticity of the document and truth of the inference drawn therefrom are distinct matters. At the outset, we may observe that there is no serious controversy regarding the authorship of the seized notebook or its nexus with the Vadapalani property transaction. The assessee has not seriously disputed that the relevant notings were made by Shri A. Gunasekaran or that the computation related to the subject property. That, however, does not conclude the matter. The real controversy before us is not whether the document is genuine, but what precisely the disputed figure recorded therein signifies, and, more importantly, whether the Revenue has established that the sum of Rs. 18.87 crore represented money which had actually passed from the assessee to the vendor. In our considered view, these are two conceptually distinct evidentiary enquiries. Proof of the existence, authorship and authenticity of a document cannot, by itself, be equated with proof that every numerical entry appearing therein represents a transaction which had actually fructified. A genuine commercial record may contain completed trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritten computation is independently established by bank records does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that every other component of the same computation must also represent a completed payment. The possibility that one figure represented an amount already received while another represented an anticipated, negotiated or outstanding amount cannot be ruled out merely because both appear on the same page. In other words, the banking trail corroborates the cheque component. There is no corresponding material corroborating the alleged cash component. 167. The Ld. DR further contended that the seized document must be read as a whole and that the assessee cannot rely upon those portions which support the accounted transaction while disowning the cash component. There can be no quarrel with the general proposition that a document ought ordinarily to be appreciated as a whole rather than in isolated fragments. However, applying that principle to the present case does not advance the Revenue's case. Reading the document as a whole necessarily requires us to take into account not merely the words "Cheque" and "Cash", but also the separate figure described as "Balance", the overall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s interpretation. His cash holdings and subsequent utilisation could have been investigated. The dates and circumstances of the alleged receipt could have been ascertained. The Revenue could have examined the source from which the assessee allegedly generated Rs. 18.87 crore, the person through whom such substantial cash was arranged, the manner of transportation and delivery, and the subsequent deployment or utilisation of the alleged cash by the recipient. Conspicuously, no such exercise was undertaken. 171. We also find considerable force in the assessee's contention that the Revenue has relied upon the statement of Shri A.Gunasekaran insofar as it establishes the identity of the property, the transaction and the cheque consideration, but has rejected his explanation regarding the disputed cash figure. There is no legal prohibition against accepting one portion of a statement and rejecting another, provided there exists cogent material warranting such differential treatment. However, such selective appreciation cannot be founded merely upon convenience. 172. In the present case, the cheque entries are supported by independent banking evidence. The disputed cash en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he person who received it on behalf of the vendor. Equally, no investigation has established the subsequent utilisation, investment or deployment by the vendor of the alleged sum of Rs. 18.87 crore. Considering the magnitude of the alleged payment, the absence of any trace whatsoever regarding its source, movement, delivery, receipt or utilisation assumes substantial evidentiary significance. 175. The Ld.DR submitted that the computation "14.5 x 3.70 = 53.65" clearly demonstrated that Rs. 53.65 crore represented the agreed consideration for the land and, consequently, the cash component necessarily formed part of the total consideration. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rs. 53.65 crore represented the amount which the vendor expected to realise at Rs. 3.70 crore per ground, it does not automatically follow that every component of that contemplated consideration was actually paid. There exists a fundamental distinction between consideration contemplated, consideration demanded, consideration negotiated, consideration expected and consideration actually paid. Section 69 of the Act operates in relation to an investment actually made. It does not bring to tax a proposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd not cash actually received. Once these materials were brought on record, the evidentiary burden shifted back to the Revenue to demonstrate, through cogent and independent material, that the explanation was false and that the alleged cash had in fact changed hands. We find that no such evidence has been brought before us. 178. The Ld.DR placed considerable reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Smt.N.Saroja v. ACIT, TCA Nos.1395 to 1401 of 2009, judgment dated 18.03.2026, and submitted that the statutory presumptions arising from seized loose sheets operate in favour of the Revenue and that the burden squarely rests upon the assessee to rebut the entries contained therein. We have carefully considered the said binding precedent. In our considered view, the ratio thereof does not warrant restoration of the impugned addition. In Smt.N.Saroja, the loose sheets in question were recovered from the premises of the assessee's themselves. The entries were found to be contemporaneous with the transactions under consideration and were fairly corroborated by surrounding material. Significantly, while the assessees' accepted those payments which stood r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proposition that loose sheets and informal records may constitute relevant and admissible material when their contents are supported by independent evidence and surrounding circumstances. The difficulty, however, lies in applying that proposition to the disputed transaction before us. The cheque component of the seized notation is independently corroborated by banking transactions. The alleged cash component of Rs. 18.87 crore is not. The Revenue cannot use the corroboration available for one class of entries as a substitute for corroboration of another materially different entry. When the principle relied upon by the Revenue is applied to the disputed cash transaction itself, rather than to the notebook in the abstract, the absence of corroborative evidence becomes apparent. We therefore find that this authority does not justify interference with the conclusion reached by the Ld.CIT(A). 181. On the contrary, the factual principle emerging from CIT v. P.V.Kalyanasundaram(supra) has greater application to the present controversy. There also, the issue concerned alleged additional consideration in relation to an immovable property transaction, and the addition could not be sus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoking the respective deeming provisions are materially different. 184. For invoking section 69 of the Act, there must first exist an investment made by the assessee which is either not recorded in the books or in respect of which the explanation regarding its nature and source is found unsatisfactory. The acquisition of the Vadapalani property itself is admittedly recorded in the regular books. What the Revenue alleges is an additional unrecorded investment of Rs. 18.87 crore. Therefore, before calling upon the assessee to explain the source thereof, the Revenue must first establish the foundational fact that such additional investment was actually made. Section 69 of the Act cannot be invoked to presume the very existence of the investment which constitutes the jurisdictional fact for invoking the provision. In the present case, that foundational fact has not been established except by drawing an inference from the disputed third-party notation. 185. For section 69A of the Act to operate, there must be material establishing that the assessee is the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not recorded in the books of account. We find that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed material cannot, in the absence of such corroboration, be elevated into proof of actual payment. 188. We also find that the conclusion reached by the Ld. CIT(A) is essentially one arising from appreciation of evidence. For interference with such factual findings, the Revenue must demonstrate that material evidence was ignored, irrelevant material was relied upon, the conclusion is contrary to the record or that the finding is otherwise perverse. We find that no such infirmity has been demonstrated before us. The fact that the cheque entries correspond with the banking transactions undoubtedly constitutes a relevant circumstance. The Ld.CIT(A) has not ignored that circumstance. However, corroboration of the cheque entries does not fill the evidentiary vacuum surrounding the alleged cash payment of Rs. 18.87 crore. The Revenue has not produced any independent material capable of dislodging the categorical finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that actual payment of the alleged cash consideration remains unproved. We therefore find no justifiable reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition of Rs. 18,87,00,000/-. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue stand dis....