Vasanthi Bijjala Vs ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
Registered Sale Deed Doesn’t Wipe Out Prior Cash Deal Indicators- Unsigned But Unignored: ITAT Upholds Addition Based on Stamped Seized Agreement
Assessee filed return declaring income of Rs.6,77,340. Pursuant to search u/s 132 on Spectra Group, unsigned but stamped loose sheets showing a development agreement dated 31.12.2019 were seized. These recorded alleged cash payment of Rs.60 lakhs by the purchaser, with Assessee’s share at 3.51% (Rs.2,10,600). AO initiated proceedings u/s 153C, treated this amount as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE & completed assessment u/s 153C r.w.s.144. Assessee denied executing any such agreement & relied on registered sale deed dated 28.01.2021 as the only valid transaction, stating she became owner only on 30.01.2020.
CIT(A) upheld addition, treating seized document as credible & supported by surrounding circumstances. Tribunal observed that in search cases seized papers must be tested on preponderance of human probability; here the seized agreement contained specific details—names of parties, survey numbers, areas, exact shares, cash component—and was stamped & signed by purchaser. Tribunal held that absence of Assessee’s signature does not render document meaningless,& subsequent registered sale deed corroborates existence of negotiations & earlier arrangements. Tribunal observed that in search related matters, the veracity and contents of seized documents are required to be carefully scrutinised, & when credible material pointing to unaccounted receipts is available with the Department, then a heavy burden is cast upon the assessee to disprove the said contents & dislodge the allegation raised by the revenue. A document containing such specific, identifiable details cannot be dismissed as vague or meaningless on the sole ground that it lacks the signatures of the vendors. Applying Sumati Dayal (SC), Tribunal held that AO correctly invoked s.153C & made addition u/s 69A. Appeal dismissed.
