|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5537 (Karn-HC) : (2021) 431 ITR 0196
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Where assessee had the opportunity to adduce the evidence in rebuttal before CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal, however, he failed to do so and even in second round of litigation, AO placed reliance on the document seized during the course of search in the premises of the assessee and, therefore, finding recorded by Tribunal that a sum was an undisclosed income could not be said to be perverse.
Search and seizure - Addition based on document seized during search - Unsigned notings seized during the search -
Assessee was engaged in real estate business. It purchased two parcels of land. A search under section 132 was conducted. During the search, a paper containing notings about the above properties purchased was seized. The said notings were neither in the handwriting of any of the partners of the firm nor in handwriting of any of the employees of the firm. As a consequence of search, proceedings were initiated under Chapter XIV-B of the Act by issue of a notice under section 158BC. Assessee filed return of income declaring 'NIL' income. AO by an order on the basis of material seized during the course of the search, added a sum as undisclosed income on account of on money paid to sellers of the land. Held: It was evident that AO relied on the document seized during the course of the search and brought to tax as undisclosed income. Assessee had opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal before CIT(A) as well as before the Tribunal, however, he failed to do so. Even in second round of litigation, AO placed reliance on document seized during the course of search in the premises of assessee and the aforesaid document admittedly related to transaction in question in respect of which sale deeds have been executed in favour of assessee. Despite opportunities being granted, assessee did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and did not discharge the burden. Therefore, finding recorded by Tribunal that a sum was an undisclosed income could not be said to be perverse.
Relied: Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5186 (SC), PR. Metrani v. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 (SC) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1868 (SC), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmall (1972) 87 ITR 349 (SC) : 1973 TaxPub(DT) 323 (SC), CIT v. Girish Chaudhary (2007) 296 ITR 619 (Del) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 692 (Del-HC), CIT v. SM Aggarwal (2006) 293 UTR 43 (Del-HC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1120 (Del-HC), CIT v. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (MAD) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 1332 (Mad-HC), CIT v. KC. Agnes & Others (2003) 262 ITR 354 (Ker-HC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 957 (Ker-HC) and HM Constructions v. Asstt. CIT [IT(SS)A No.9/Bang/2014, IT(SS)A No.10/Bang/2014, dt. 23-3-2015].
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT