ITAT Overturns ₹8 Lakh Tax Addition Due to Lack of Evidence
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Chandigarh has ruled that an addition of ₹8,00,000, made under sections 69 and 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, was not justifiable. The tribunal found that the addition was based solely on third-party search materials, specifically an Excel sheet and statements obtained during a search on a different entity, without any independent corroboration or an opportunity for the assessee to cross-examine the individuals involved.
The Case of Amarjot Singh Sohi (HUF)
The appeal involved Amarjot Singh Sohi (HUF) and the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The central question before the ITAT Chandigarh was whether an ₹8,00,000 addition, levied under sections 69 and 115BBE, could stand when it relied exclusively on an Excel sheet and statements recorded under section 132(4) from a search conducted on the Omaxe Group. Crucially, the assessee was not provided with independent supporting evidence or the chance to cross-examine the sources of this information.
The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, had purchased a commercial property in Mullanpur from M/s Omaxe Ltd. According to the assessee, the entire purchase price was paid through banking channels and was accurately reflected in their accounts. This transaction was supported by documentary evidence, including bank statements, the sale agreement, a confirmation from the seller, and entries in Form 26AS. An affidavit was also submitted by the assessee, explicitly denying any cash component in the payment.
Following a search and seizure operation on the Omaxe Group by the Income Tax Department, an Excel sheet allegedly containing details of cash transactions with various buyers was discovered. Coupled with statements recorded from Omaxe Ltd. officials under section 132(4), the department inferred that the assessee had paid an additional ₹8,00,000 in cash, beyond the documented consideration.
This led to the reopening of the assessee’s case under section 147, with a notice issued under section 148. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer presented the alleged entries from the Excel sheet to the assessee. The assessee firmly denied making any cash payment, reiterating that the transaction was conducted entirely through banking channels and provided comprehensive documentation to support this claim. This documentation included bank statements, payment details, confirmation from Omaxe Ltd., Form 26AS, and the aforementioned affidavit.
Assessing Officer’s and CIT(A)’s Stance
Despite the assessee’s detailed submissions and evidence, the Assessing Officer placed significant reliance on the seized Excel sheet and the statements from Omaxe officials. The officer alleged that the figures in the Excel sheet were deliberately understated, applying a factor of 100, to calculate the assessee’s supposed cash component at ₹8,00,000. Notably, the Assessing Officer did not offer the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the Omaxe officials whose statements were used against them.
The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had made an unaccounted cash payment of ₹8,00,000 for the property purchase. This conclusion was primarily based on the Excel sheet data and the recorded statements, with the documentary evidence provided by the assessee being disregarded. The denial of a cash payment was not accepted, and the ₹8,00,000 was consequently treated as an unexplained investment under section 69 and taxed under section 115BBE.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, upheld the Assessing Officer’s decision. The CIT(A) agreed that the seized material and statements were sufficient evidence to warrant the addition and dismissed the assessee’s arguments concerning the lack of corroboration and the denial of cross-examination.
ITAT’s Decision and Key Principles
The ITAT, after reviewing the arguments and evidence, decided to delete the addition and allowed the assessee’s appeal. The tribunal highlighted that the entire case against the assessee rested on third-party material and statements obtained from a search on another entity. A critical factor in the tribunal’s decision was the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination, which was deemed a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
The ITAT emphasized that the burden of proof to demonstrate any cash payment lay with the Assessing Officer. The assessee, by submitting all primary evidence such as bank statements, the agreement, seller confirmation, Form 26AS, and an affidavit, had discharged their initial onus. Conversely, the Assessing Officer failed to present any independent or corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of a cash payment.
The tribunal also pointed out that the Excel sheet relied upon by the Assessing Officer lacked verification and corroboration, rendering it insufficient as conclusive evidence. It reiterated the established legal principle that additions cannot be made based solely on presumptions, assumptions, or unverified third-party documents.
Furthermore, the tribunal noted that an assessee cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, such as the absence of a cash payment. Once the assessee had provided all available documentary evidence supporting a banking channel transaction, the onus shifted to the department, which, in this instance, remained unfulfilled.
The ITAT applied established judicial principles, including the requirement for cross-examination when relying on third-party statements, the limited evidentiary value of unverified data without corroboration, and the responsibility of the Assessing Officer to prove the facts for invoking section 69. The tribunal underscored that strong suspicion cannot substitute for concrete evidence.
Consequently, the ITAT ruled the addition of ₹8,00,000 to be unsustainable in law and ordered its deletion. The assessee’s appeal was allowed, and the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the income accordingly.
Build a better, regular income stream with LAMORC DIGITAL. Join as our partner today.
Readers should treat this as a tax and compliance update, not as personal advice.
This article is for general information based on available source information. It should not be considered legal, tax, investment, or financial advice.