AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.03.2025 of the Ld. PCIT(Central), Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. ‘Revisionary Authority’) in DIN & Order No : ITBA/COM/F/17/2024- 25/1075231973(1)arising out of the order dated 30.12.2022 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ACIT, Central, Karnal for AY: 2021-22.
A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out at the business premises of Unique Group and residential premises of its director and family members on 11.01.2022. The assessee is connected with group and was also covered under the search. The assessment in case of assessee for AY: 2021-22 was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act by order dated 30.12.2022 at returned income.
However, the ld. Revisionary Authority was not satisfied and believed that AO had failed to verify cash receipt/payments recorded in certain seized material and AO has failed to consider survey statement of Satish Kumar.
The contention of ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee is that ld. Revisionary Authority was oblivious of the fact that additions of Rs.7,86,25,555/- were made by the Assessing Officer in the case of Unique Energos Pvt. Ltd. u/s 69A of the Act on the basis of these very seized alleged incriminating evidences.
In this context, the copy of assessment order dated 23.06.2023 for AY: 2021-22 in the case of Unique Energos Pvt. Ltd. is available at Page 61-88 of the paper book and we find that in para 5 of the said assessment order the Ld. AO had observed as follows:
“5.During the course of survey action u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 atregistered office of assessee company located at H.No. 103-104, Chhoti Line, Brijpuri, Yamuna Nagar, some documents were found which were seized and marked as Annexure A, A-1, A-2 and A-3. On perusal of annexure A-1 impounded from the premises, it was noticed that various figures in lakhs of rupees were mentioned on different pages wherein cash receipts and cash payments entries were mentioned. On perusal of page no. 8 to 12 of Annexure A-1, it was noticed that the total of cash receipts comes to Rs. 5,07,84,500/- which remained unexplained during the survey/search and thereafter post-search enquiry. On perusal of pages no. 6 to 7 of Annexure A-1, it was noticed that total cash receipts comes to total of Rs. 2,28,41,055/- which remained unexplained during the survey/search and post-search inquiry.”
After taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and the evidences the assessing officer observed in para 5.3.4 & 5.3.5 as follows:
“5.3.4In view of the above, it is observed that assessee has deliberately decided to not explain the contents of these documents as they have no explanation about the source of various unaccounted cash received and cash payments entries mentioned on the various pages of Annexure A-1. On perusal of Annexure A-1 impounded from the premises, it is noticed that various figures in lakhs of rupees are mentioned on different pages wherein cash receipts and cash payment entries were mentioned. On perusal of page no. 8 to 12 of Annexure A-1, it is noticed that the total cash receipts comes to Rs. 5,07,84,500/- which remained unexplained inspite of providing sufficient opportunity to it. Similarly, on perusal of Page No. 6 to 7 of Annexure A-1, it is noticed that total cash receipts comes to total of Rs. 2,28,41,055/- which also remained unexplained in the absence of any satisfactory explanation alongwith supporting documentary evidence. Therefore, total cash receipts worked out to the tune of Rs. 7,36,25,555/- (5,07,84,500+2,78,41,055) during the A.Y. 2021-22 and required to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
5.3.5Assessee company has denied to have any relation with documents seized during survey, but as per Section 292C of the Act,when a document is seized from the premises owned and controlled by a particular person, there is a presumption that such document relates to the affairs of that person and it is the onus of that person to prove it that the document does not relate to him but to some other person.Section 292C of the Act specifically states that if any document/ record is found during the course of search/survey from possession of any person then the presumption is that it belongs to it. The section is reproduced below for clarity:
Presumption as to assets, books of account, etc.—Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed—
(i)that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person;
(ii)that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and
(iii)that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.".
Since the assessee has failed to discharge this onus, the documents inventorized as Annexure-1 recovered from the premisescontrolled and occupied by the assessee are deemed to be belonging to it as per Section 292C and the transactions recorded therein are deemed to be transactions carried out by the assessee.
Keeping in view the above discussion as well as circumstances of the case, addition of Rs. 7,86,25,555/-is being made in the hands of the assessee company M/s Unique EnergoesPvt. Ltd.as unexplained money u/s 69A as it had received such credits in cash which is failed to explain.
Ld. DR has tried to defend the impugned order by asserting that the assessing officer’s order is not speaking, therefore, ld. revisionary authority was justified to invoke provisions of Section 263 of the Act.
However, that does not justify the validity of the impugned order as when the assessment in the case of assessee was concluded on 30.12.2022 the assessment in case of Unique Energos Pvt. Ltd. was pending and the assessment was concluded by the same assessing officer on 23.06.2023.That same indicates that the assessing officer was aware as to in whose hands the addition needs to be actually be made.
The assessee has taken a plea before ld. Revisionary Authority that he is not a director/shareholder of M/s Energos Pvt. Ltd. nor he is associated directly or indirectly with the said firm but ld. Revisionary Authority invoked provision of Section 132(4A) and Section 292C of the Act to connect the impounded documents with the assessee to hold that AO has completed the assessment without making complete inquiries and verification in respect of seized material/impounded documents. We are of the considered view that the assessing officer was same officer who had concluded assessment making additions in the hands of Energos Pvt. Ltd. then it is not justified to hold that there was any failure to make inquiries in respect of seized material/impounded documents.
In the light of aforesaid circumstances we are inclined to hold that impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is not sustainable. The grounds are sustained. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.