Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Loose Sheets & Confession Not Enough – ITAT Bangalore Deletes Additions in Kasargod Builder’s Case
These six appeals by Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, a Kasargod-based real estate developer, arose from search assessments u/s 153A/144 for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19. AO had made huge additions u/s 69B on the basis of loose sheets, rough notings & sworn statements recorded u/s 132(4), treating them as unexplained investments in land purchases & business income. CIT(A) had confirmed the additions.
AY 2013-14 (ITA 485/Bang/2024)
AO made addition of ₹84 lakh as unexplained investment based on loose slips suggesting payments to vendor Praphulla Shetty and ₹4 lakh cash deposit under JDA. Assessee argued that original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) in 2016 and no incriminating material was found. Tribunal held that while seized slips could justify reopening, the additions lacked corroboration. Rough notings on the back of an agreement are “dumb documents” without evidentiary value. Since there was no supporting material or assets found, addition was deleted.
AYs 2014-15 to 2017-18 (ITAs 463–466/Bang/2024)
AO made multiple additions ranging from ₹22 lakh to ₹2.41 crore, again on basis of unsigned loose papers, vague scribblings, & uncorroborated statements. Tribunal examined precedents including Khosla Ice & General Mills (P&H HC), Common Cause (SC), Harjeev Aggarwal (Delhi HC) & Khader Khan Son (SC). It held that:
- Loose sheets with rough figures & no parties’ names are not incriminating material.
- Presumption u/s 292C is rebuttable; suspicion cannot substitute evidence.
- Statement u/s 132(4) alone, especially when retracted or uncorroborated, cannot sustain additions.
- Accordingly, additions of ₹55 lakh, ₹29.5 lakh, ₹85 lakh & ₹2.41 crore were deleted in full.
AY 2018-19 (ITA 486/Bang/2024)
