ITAT Quashes Addition as Seized Document doesn’t mention Name or Signature of Assessee [Read Order]

The Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while quashing the addition held that addition on account of alleged interest income cannot be sustained since the seized document doesn’t bear the name or signature of the Assessee.

Judicial Member H.S. Sidhu held so while considering the appeal of Neeraj Goel against ACIT. A search and seizure action was conducted in the premises of Assessee under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act and return u/s. 153A of the Act was filed declaring the same income as filed originally.

The consequence to the proceeding AO made the addition on account of alleged interest income on the basis of a seized document and assessed the income of the assessee more than that of original assessed income.

Assessee contested the same before CIT (A), where authority through its impugned order affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Further aggrieved with this order Assessee carried the matter to this tribunal. V.K. Aggarwal appeared at the behest of Assessee and raised a major contention that midst of search proceedings, one loose paper was seized containing some jottings can be declared as bald documents since the same does not have either the name, sign of the assessee or any other person.

He further submitted that document was found from the residence of Assessee which was being frequently visited by various visitors including friends and relatives. Hence Assessee pleaded that the addition made on account of such bald document needs to be deleted.

Assessee bank on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Central-3 vs. Praveen Juneja wherein Appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. On the counterpart Revenue’s contention was that document bearing computation of interest was found from the residence of Assessee and also added that said addition in dispute was rightly made and confirmed by the CIT (A), which does not need any interference. For this Revenue cited various case laws which were rejected before Tribunal.

The tribunal bench impressed with the decision relied on Assessee which has identical facts and issues involved. Keeping in view of the same judicial member, Sidhu ordered that Addition on account of alleged interest income cannot be sustained in the eyes of law since the same mentioned in the document doesn’t bear the name, sign or even the handwriting of Assessee.

The tribunal also observed that the document contains some jottings of certain figures doesn’t indicate whether it’s an investment or loan and the same must be considered as the bald document.