ACIT Vs Yerra Rajesh (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that addition u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of excel sheet seized from third party without any independent enquiry and independent corroborative evidences is unsustainable in law.
Facts- Assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2022-23. Thereafter, a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the group cases of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals on21.12.2022. Based on search, it was observed that the assessee has involved in financial transactions with all the four brothers and key persons of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals. AO observed that the assessee has purchased land from four brothers for a consideration of Rs.1,62,80,000/-.
During the course of search proceedings, an excel calculation sheet found and seized. The said calculation sheet was confronted with the searched parties. Shri Mohammad Ismail stated that the cash of Rs.3,80,05,000/- is received in connection with the land situated in Andhra Pradesh, admeasuring 1480 square yards sold to Shri Yerra Rajesh (the assessee). AO brought Rs.3,80,05,000/- under tax u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that except, the seized document in the form of Excel sheet, AO has not related the entries in the Excel sheet by way of independent corroborative evidences involving the nexus of the buyer and the property details, we are of the view that AO has erred in considering the amount of Rs.3,80,05,000/- as on-money payment by the assessee. Further, Excel Sheet was found in the premises of M/s. Meenakshi Agro Chemicals for which the assessee is not at all related. We also observe from the order of AO that no incriminating material has been seized from the premises of the assessee. We also find that AO has not conducted any independent enquiry on the contents of the Excel Sheet by linking it to the assessee and bringing any material on the record that the assessee has transferred cash to the sellers. Thus, CIT(A) has rightly concluded by deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
