Nasser Aziz Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
When Revenue Assumes & Not Proves, ITAT Removes – High-Pitched Additions Without Evidence?- ITAT Says Absolutely Not- Search Gave Jurisdiction, But Facts Gave Victory – ITAT Sides with Assessee on Merits
This case arose out of a search conducted on Assessee & its group, leading to assessments under section 153A. The Assessing Officer made several additions alleging unexplained investments & on-money payments based primarily on loose sheets & statements of third parties. Assessee challenged these additions before CIT(A) , who deleted most of them. Revenue appealed to Tribunal. Assessee also filed cross-objections supporting CIT(A) ’s order, citing absence of incriminating material, lack of evidence, violation of natural justice, & incorrect legal approach by AO .
For AY 2007-08, the additions related to two land purchases in Bangalore- one situated at Muniswamiappa Road & another at Horamavu. AO alleged unexplained investment on the assumption that the property was purchased at a higher price than recorded. CIT(A) found that AO relied entirely on conjecture, had no specific documentary evidence of any extra consideration, & had neither confronted Assessee with any seized material nor provided any basis for the alleged higher value. The payments were made through banking channels & duly recorded in the books. CIT(A) , holding that AO’s addition was based on suspicion rather than evidence, deleted it. Tribunal agreed & noted that no incriminating material relating to these alleged underpayments was found during search. It reaffirmed that for any addition, the burden is on the Revenue to prove with cogent material, not on mere presumptions. Consequently, the deletion for AY 2007-08 was upheld.
