TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hin the stipulated time and thus filed the belated appeal. Thus he requested to kindly condone the delay. Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR. After hearing both the side and perusing the contents of the petition for condonation, we are of the considered view that reasonable cause has been attributed to the assessee to file this belated appeal, hence, the delay in dispute is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The only issue on merits is as regards the order of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 1,12,75,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act being amount received totaling to Rs. 1,62,75,000/- during Lok Sabha Election. 4. The brief facts of the case are that a search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on the residential as well as business premises of the assessee on 23.07.2019. During the course of search at the residence of the assessee at 3, Jarcanda Avenue, Westend Green, Rajokri, New Delhi, 120 pages of rough jottings in the handwriting of Mr. Sukumar Poria, a Congress worker and parttime employee of the assessee, was seized and classified as Annexure A-1. The AO during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2358;्री सुकुमार पोरिआ की request पर यह statement temporary suspend (स्थगित) किया जा रहा है। 5. The statement of Shri Sukumar Prohia was stopped on 24.07.2019 and the same was confronted to Sh. Kuldeep Bishnoi and question posed to Sh. Kuldeep Bishnoi vide Question No. 61 which read as under:- "Q.61 Sukumar Poria was shown page no. 113 of Annexure A-1, seized from your residential premises at 3 Jarcanda Avenue, Westend Greens, during his statement which was recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, by Om Prakash Meena, DDIT on 24.7.2019. He was asked to explain the contents of the pages. In response he stated the following: Payment received for Election SI. No. Name Amount Remarks 1. Suhant Lok 13 lakh Chunav ke liye Sachin Shapra ne cheque no. diye 2. K.K. 10 lakh Kishan lal Bishnoi ne cash mein diye hain 3. K.K. 10 lakh Kishan lal Bishnoi ne cash mein diye hain 4. Sumit Chawla ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2340; की गई है? कृपया इन्पृष्टो (Exhibit -4 ) को देखकर बताइये की क्या यह handwriting आपकी है और यदि है तो: कृपया इन्पृष्ठों पर लिखित सामग्री का विवरण दे? Ans - हां, मैंने उपरोक्त प्रश्न में वर्णित पृष्ठ 112 एवं 113 को देख लिया है तथा में यह तथ्य स्....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 10. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that page no. 113 of Annexure A-I found during the course of search detailed out the amounts under the head 'D received for election' and the abbreviation 'D' was explained by Sh. Sukumar Poria as cash receipts. Ld. CIT(A) also noted that Rs. 80 lacs was received by cheque and RS. 82.75 lacs was received in cash. The CIT(A) also presumed in view of section 292C read with section 132(4A) of the Act that the document found i.e. Annexure A-I belongs to the assessee and contents are true, because the assessee is unable to rebut the same with evidence. The CIT(A) further noted the statement of Sh. Sukumar Poria who prepared the document has significant evidentiary value as he explained the entries in detail including the amounts received in cash and cheque which was corroborated with the circumstantial evidences. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee admitted that the documents related to payments received for election purposes and these admission combine with corroborative statement of Sh. Sukumar Poria, the document is not dumb document and it specifies the entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has agreed to what Late Mr. Sukumar Poria has said. In this regard, it is stated that the assessee has only agreed to the aspect that the above entries might be related to the amount received for election purpose. The AO is harping on the confirmation made by the assessee that "I agree to what Sukumar has said on the above received payments". From the plain reading of the said statement, it shall be clear that Late Mr. Sukumar Poria has not stated that he has received the amount of cash on behalf of the assessee or that the assessee is the owner of the said cash. The assessee has not at all confirmed or accepted that the above amount was received by him in his individual capacity. The assessee has not, at all, confirmed that as to whether the amount has been received in cash or whether the same was receivable in cash or whether the amount can be crystallised to be received in the A.Y under consideration. It is reiterated that the endorsement only pertains and relates to the nature of entries recorded in the said page on estimation basis and nothing more. 13. It is submitted that the AO has grossly failed to appreciate that at the relevant point of time the assessee was the part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2375;ं वर्णित point No 1 से 6 पे अंकित 162 करोड़ 1,62,75,000 रुपए (पृष्ठ पर वर्णित total amount या इस शीर्षिक के तहत मेरे द्वारा नहीं लिखी गई है न ही इसके बारे में Iag). From the bare perusal of the said statement, it shall be evidently clear that actually Late Mr. Sukumar is stating that the entry made under the title by (D), is not been made by him and therefore he does not know anything about it. This only shows that there are apparent contradictions in the statement recorded which cannot be given huge credence, which has been endeavored to be given by Ld. AO. It is submitted that the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer only on the statement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case. The admitted fact are that search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on residential and business premises of the assessee on 23-7-2019, from where loose papers consisting of 120 pages of rough joltings by late Sukumar Poria, a Congress worker, a part-time employee of the assessee, was seized as Annexed A1. The relevant is only one page, that page number 113 of the Annexure A1, wherein the heading given is "D", received for election, in the first half of the page, and total amount received is Rs. 1,62,75,000/-. The second half of the page is heading as "handover by D", wherein, various amounts are depicted against different names, that is also amount of Rs. 1,62,75,000, and this paper is dated 13-5-19. It can be seen from the above page that majority of the amounts are received in cash, one or two items are received in cheque. The AO noted that some of the entries received by cash, while some have been received in cheque, and he counted that a sum of rupees 80 lakhs was received in cheque, while rupees 82.75 lakhs was received in cash. In the initial the revenue's entire premise was that the sheet which is titled as 'D', received for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in electioneering in Haryana and Haryana State has 10 Lok Sabha seats and it cannot be denied that the funds have been received for the party from the workers or for any other entity, it is not clear. In such circumstances and fact of the case, whether merely on the basis of loose sheets found, addition cannot be made without corroborating evidence or without supporting evidence. Hence we are of the view that to make addition based on the loose sheets, AO must support the findings from the loose papers with evidence such as independent inquiry or material linking the transaction to the assessee. There are clearly many names mentioned of various persons or entities from whom the AO could have verified. However, no inquiry was conducted by the AO to know the veracity or authenticity of the loose sheets. Accordingly, we are of the view that once the AO has not carried out any exercise in any form to corroborate the theory, that it is actually the assessee, who has actually paid or received or spent the amount stated in the assessment order in cash and none of the alleged recipients of the cash towards alleged election expenses, were ever summoned by the department to question over s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries. In case we do not insist for all these, the process of law can be abused against all and sundry very easily to achieve ulterior goals and then no democracy can survive in case investigations are lightly set in motion against important constitutional functionaries on the basis of fictitious entries, in absence of cogent and admissible material on record, lest liberty of an individual be compromised unnecessarily." 18. Similarly, in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary [2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Delhi), has held as under:- 8. Section 158B of the Act is a part of Chapter XIVB dealing with special procedure for assessment of search cases. The Chapter contains section 158B to section 158H. "Block period" and "undisclosed income" have been defined in clauses (a) and (b) to section 158B, for the purpose of the Chapter. We are concerned with the definition of "undisclosed income". The provision in its entirely reads as follow: "(b) 'undisclosed income' includes any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any income based....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is corresponding to Financial Year 2019-20, relevant to Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee has filed affidavit before the Election Commission of India for expenses in the month of May 2019. When these facts were confronted to the learned CIT-DR, she argued that the dates of election campaign are available, referred by the AO in regard to election schedule, i.e. 1st March 2019, 27th March 2019, 22nd March 2019. In terms of this learned CIT(DR), stated that assessee's case falls under Assessment Year 2019-20 and not in Assessment Year 2020-21, as contended by the assessee. 22. We have heard the rival contention, gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, assessee contested the Lok Sabha election of 2019 from Hisar constituency and candidate was permitted to spend up to Rs. 50 lakhs for commercial expenses as per the Code of Conduct declared by the Election Commission of India. Election-related expenses by the assessee were funded by the Indian National Congress in terms of Model Code of Conduct issued by the Election Commission of India, and assessee received this money for election expenses from Indian National Congress in his bank account by way o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In the circumstances and facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the additions so made by the AO. Accordingly, all the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed." 24. In case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahabir Prasad Gupta (supra), this Court has examined the facts and concluded that the concurrent finding of the facts cannot be disturbed as there was no material which could justify the assessment order. The relevant portion of the said order which reads as under: "13. The above submissions fail to persuade this Court to interfere with the matter. Concurrent findings of fact have been rendered by the CIT (A) as well as by the ITAT. Nothing has been pleaded in the memorandum of appeal to persuade the Court to hold that those findings are perverse or contrary to the facts on record. Secondly, there is not a whisper in the order of the AO about any bag recovered from the premises of the Assessee during the search of the Assessee's premises on 22nd March 2006. There is no such averment even in the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court. The material referred to in the order of the AO is that whi....