DCIT, Coimbatore V. Shri K.Sivalingam, Tiruppur

ITA 1354/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2453 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BHANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. NO . ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 1353/MDS/2012 2008-09 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III, COIMBATORE MR. K.VINAYAGAM 68A, COLLEGE ROAD TIRUPUR-641 602 PAN:ABCPV5976M 2. 1354/MDS/2012 2008-09 DCIT., C.C.-III, COIMBATORE MR. K.SIVALINGAM TIRUPUR-641 602 PAN:AIJPS3774L 3. 1355/MDS/2012 2008-09 DCIT., C.C.-III, COIMBATORE MR.P.P.K.PARAMASIVAM TIRUPUR-641 602. PAN:AEFPP6003B 4. 1356/MDS/2012 2008-09 DCIT., C.C.-III, COIMBATORE MR. K.NANDHAGOPAL, TIRUPUR-641 602 PAN:ABEPN1287F 5. 1357/MDS/2012 2008-09 DCIT., C.C.-III, COIMBATORE MR.P.K.AROOMUGAM, TIRUPUR-641 602. PAN:ACBPA4907 6. 1358/MDS/2012 2008-09 DCIT., C.C.-III, COIMBATORE MR. T.K.CHANDRAN, TIRUPUR-641 602. PAN:ABTPC9123G APPELLANT BY : MR. S.DAS GUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : MR. T.BHANUSEKAR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 4 TH JUNE, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 TH JUNE, 2013 O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 2 COIMBATORE DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2012 IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND SINCE THE ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS COMMON AND ALL THESE ASSESSEES ARE BROTHERS, WE DISPOSE OFF ALL THESE APPEALS TOGE THER BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZ URE ACTION IN THE GROUP COMPANIES AS WELL AS RESIDENTIA L PREMISES OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES ON 19.03.2008. IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH THE DEPARTMENT FOUND LOOSE SHEETS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. K.MANICKAM, WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEES. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT QUESTIONED ABOUT THESE LOOSE SHEETS WHEREIN CERTAIN NOTINGS WERE MADE, MR. K.MANICKAM SUBMITTED IN HIS REPLY TO THE DEPARTMEN T THAT THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED LOOSE SHEETS RELATE TO PROPOS AL OF ROUGH ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF THEIR GROUP FOR SHARING BETWEE N THEIR ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 3 BROTHERS. HE HAS ALSO STATED THAT VALUATION STATED IN THE LOOSE SHEETS ARE PURE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE DOES NOT CARRY ANY IMPORTANCE AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE INCOME OF THEIR CONCERNS OR INDIVIDUALS. THE SUBMISSIONS O F MR. K.MANICKAM WERE REJECTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS OF MR. K.MAN ICKAM AND ALL THE ASSESSEES UNDER APPEAL BASED ON THE LOO SE SHEETS AND NOTINGS THEREON AND MADE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ALL THESE ASSESSE ES PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER CONSID ERING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS ORDER, T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN ALL THESE ASSESSE ES CASES. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH LOOSE SHEETS WERE IMPOUNDED FROM T HE ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 4 RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. K.MANICKAM, WHO IS BROT HER OF THESE ASSESSEES AND THESE LOOSE SHEETS CONTAIN INV ESTMENTS MADE BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THEIR NAMES AND NOT PRO POSAL OF ROUGH ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF ASSESSEES GROUP FOR SHAR ING BETWEEN THEM AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THESE INVESTMENTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT MR. K.MANICKAM HAD IN FACT NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AND ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHEREAS ALL THESE ASSES SEES HAVE FILED APPEALS AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BASED ON T HE SEIZED MATERIALS. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THA T MR. K.MANICKAM DID NOT FILE APPEAL ON THE ADDITION BECA USE SUCH ADDITION WAS SET OFF AGAINST INCOME ALREADY OFFERE D BY MR. MANICKAM IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH.. THE COUNSEL FURT HER SUBMITS THAT IN ALL THESE ASSESSEES EXCEPT IN THE C ASES OF MR. P.P.K. PARAMASIVAM AND MR. T.K.CHANDRAN, THE ASSESS ING ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 5 OFFICER HAD IN FACT ALLOWED SET OFF OF INCOME OFFER ED BY THESE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BASED ON THE L OOSE SHEETS AND THESE ADDITIONS ARE ONLY NET ADDITIONS A FTER SET OFF WAS MADE. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO EVI DENCE TO SHOW THAT THE JOTTINGS IN THE LOOSE SHEETS REPRE SENT EITHER RUPEES, THOUSANDS, LAKHS OR CRORES. THE COUNSEL FUR THER SUBMITS THAT IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE S HEETS EITHER THESE AMOUNTS WERE PAID OR RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEES. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THESE LOOSE SHEETS CONTAIN ONLY DETAILS OF PROPOSALS OF ROUGH ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF ASSESSEES GROUP FOR SHARING BETWEEN THEIR BROTHERS. THE COUN SEL SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BRO THERS REGARDING SHARING OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND SHOPS AMONG ST THEM. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THESE LOOSE SHEETS W ERE PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE MATTER IN THEIR FAMILY MEE TING AND TO GIVE A PROPOSAL THEY HAVE EVALUATED MARKET VALUE OF ALL THE CONCERNS ON A WILD GUESS JUST TO START DISCUSSION, BUT THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT TAKEN UP IN THE MEETING AND THE M ATTER WAS POSTPONED. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE VALUATION STATED IN THE LOOSE SHEETS ARE PURE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE AN D WITHOUT ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 6 ANY BASIS. HE SUBMITS THAT THESE ESTIMATED FIGURES DO NOT CARRY ANY IMPORTANCE AND DO NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE INCOME OF THE CONCERNS OR INDIVIDUALS OF THE ASSESS EES. THE WORDS ALREADY PAID APPEARING IN THE LOOSE SHEETS REPRESENT THE VALUE OF GOODWILL OF ONE ESTABLISHMENT/SHOP WH ICH WAS ALREADY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEES. THEREFO RE THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE SAID SEIZED LOOSE SHEETS D OES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES AND NEE D NOT BE GIVEN ANY IMPORTANCE. THE COUNSEL THEREFORE SUB MITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AD DITION ON SURMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON THESE LOOSE SHEET S WITHOUT THERE BEING CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OR MATER IAL TO SUGGEST THAT THESE FIGURES REPRESENT INVESTMENTS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEES OR INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEES. IN SUP PORT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. D.K. GUPTA [ 308 ITR 230 (DEL) ] 2. CIT VS. GIRISH CHAUDHARY [ 296 ITR 619 (DEL)] 3. BANSAL STRIPS (P) LTD. & ORS. VS. ACIT [99 IT D 177 (DEL)] 4. M.M.FINANCIERS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT.,[107 TTJ 20 0 (CHENNAI) ] ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 7 5. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THA T IF AT ALL THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IT IS TO BE MADE ONL Y IN THE HANDS OF MR. K.MANICKAM AS THESE LOOSE SHEETS WERE FOUND IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. MANICKAM. HE FUR THER SUBMITS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DATE MENTIONED O N THE LOOSE SHEETS, IT CANNOT BE ASSESSED FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE GROUP CONCERNS OF THESE ASSESSEES AND IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. THE DEPARTMENT SEIZED CERTAIN LOOSE SHEET S IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ONE MR. K.MANICKAM WHO IS T HE BROTHER OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES. IN THESE LOOSE SHEE TS CERTAIN FIGURES WERE MENTIONED AS INDICATED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THESE FIGURES THAT THESE FIGUR ES REPRESENT EITHER RUPEES, THOUSANDS, LAKHS OR CRORES. IT IS AL SO NOT CLEAR FROM THESE FIGURES THAT EITHER THESE FIGURES REPRES ENT PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES OR PAYMENTS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEES. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT C LEAR AS TO ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 8 WHETHER THESE FIGURES REPRESENT PAYMENTS OR RECEIP TS BY THE ASSESSEES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSES TH AT THESE FIGURES REPRESENT ONLY DETAILS OF PROPOSALS OF ROUG H ESTIMATE OF VALUE OF THEIR GROUP FOR SHARING AMONGST BY THE BROTHERS. THIS SUBMISSION WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER STATES THAT THE ONLY INFERENCE TH AT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THESE FIGURES IS THAT THE DOCUMENT EVIDE NCES THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY INFERRING THAT THE ASSESSEES COULD HAVE MAD E PAYMENT WHEREVER THE WORD APPEARED PAID AGAINST FIGURES AND IN RESPECT OF ALL OTHER FIGURES JOTTED IN THE LOOSE SH EETS WERE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES AND TAXED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. NOTHING WAS F OUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE S HAVE EITHER MADE INVESTMENT OR EARNED INCOME. IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE EITHER MADE INVES TMENT OR RECEIVED INCOME MATCHING WITH THESE FIGURES JOTTED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE AS UNEXPLAINE D ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 9 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPE ARS TO HAVE MADE THE ADDITIONS MERELY ON SURMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE ISSUE IN APPEALS HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DEALT WITH BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER IN PARAS 5 TO 6.4 AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . WHILE DELETING THE ADDITIONS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS AS UNDER:- 5 . ON PERUSAL OF THE LOOSE SHEET SEIZED FROM THE RES I DENCE OF SHRI K . MANICKAM , BROTHER OF THE APPEL L ANT WHICH IS ENCLOSED , I REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFF I CER VIDE LETTER IN ITA NO . 491 C , 493C , 494C, 496C, 498C , 500C/09-10 DATED 13 . 10 . 2012 : TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT TO CLA RI FY ON THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES : A) WHETHER ANY ENQU I RIES WERE CONDUCTED T O ESTABLISH THE SUMS M ENTIONED AS THOUSANDS , LACS OR CRORES ? B) WHETHER ANY FURTHER POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES WERE UNDERTAKEN TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE JOTTINGS AND THE SOURCES FROM ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 10 WHICH SUCH RECEIPT COULD BE ACCOUNTED . C) WHETHER ANY COMPARISON WITH THE WEALTH TAX RECORDS OF THE ASSESSES WERE MADE TO VER I FY THE ASSESSEE ' S CLAIM THAT THE JOTT I NGS REPRESENTED THE NET WO R TH OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP? IN RES P ONSE TO THE ISSUES RAISED ABOVE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT REPLIED AS UNDE R : A) WHETHER ANY ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED TO NO ESTABLISH THE SUMS MENTIONED AS THOUSANDS , LACS OR CRORES ? B) WHETHER ANY FURTHER POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES NO WERE UNDERTAKEN TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE JOTTINGS AND THE SOURCES FROM WHICH SUCH RECE I PT COULD BE ACCOUNTED . C) WHETHER ANY COMPARISON W I TH THE WEALTH NO . SINCE THE GROUP COMPAN I ES TAX RECORDS OF THE ASSESSES WERE MADE TO ARE NOT L IABLE FOR WEALTH TAX ON VERIFY THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE JOTTINGS COMMERC IAL ASSETS , IT IS N O REPRESENTED THE NET WORTH OF THE ASSESSEE POSS I BLE TO COMPARE THE ASSETS AND GROUP? THE JOTT I NGS . 6 . 1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA - (IX) OF PAGE NO . 211 OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT CAPTIONED ' UNACCOUNTED CASH DISTRIBUTION TO DIRECTORS ': ' LOOSE SHEETS (1-24) SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF K . MANICKAM , 215 , D ESABANDHU STREET , RAM NAGAR , COIMBATORE CONTA I NS THE FOLLOWING: VI . KV EDTCS 16.00 KTM 12 . 00 SCM FAC 13.60 UNITVI 0 . 60 42 . 20 CASH 2.80 45 . 00 ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 11 THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID TO T . K . CHANDIRAN , K . MAN I CKAM , K . SIVALINGAM , K . ARUMUGAM , K . NANDAGOPAL , AND K . PARAMASIVAM IS RS . 319 . 45 LAKHS. IT IS MENTIONED THAT ALREADY PAID IS RS . 10 . HENCE , IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAID TO ALL THESE PERSONS. THE MENT I ON OF PERUNDURAI AND L& T LAND I S REGARDING THE LAND HELD BY THE GROUP IN PERUNDURAI AND LAND IN NATIONAL H I GHWAY IN AVINASHI . WHEN CONFRONTED THEY COULD NOT ANSWER. ' I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . 2 THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EACH OF THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED ARE IN RUPEES LAKHS. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE IN RUPEES LAKHS AND NOT IN THOUSANDS OR I N CRORES WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT NO ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED TO ESTABLISH WITH THE SUMS MENTIONED ARE EITHER IN THOUSANDS , LAKHS OR CRORES . IN THE ABSENCE OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THAT ALL THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED ARE IN RUPEES LAKHS . 6 . 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 12 THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE SHEET ARE ENTRIES BY WAY OF ASSETS DIVISION BASED ON MARKET VALUE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ETC . PERUSAL OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS WOULD ALSO CONFIRM THAT THE ENTRIES POINTS TO CERTAIN ASSETS RATHER THAN INCOME GENERATION . FOR EXAMPLE, AN ENTRY SHOWN AS WINDMILL AT 10. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD INVEST IN WINDMILL FROM THE UNACCOUNTED SOURCES OF RS . 10 LAKHS. FURTHER , FOR RS.10 LAKHS, EVEN SOME PARTS OF THE WINDMILL OWNED BY THE APPELLANT GROUP CANNOT BE PURCHASED. THEREFORE, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPELLAN T THAT THE JOTTINGS DO NOT INDICATE ANY GENERATION OF INCOME BUT DIVISION OF ASSETS. 6 . 4 . THE REMAND REPORT ALSO INDICATES THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS UNABLE TO ESTABLISH ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE JOTTINGS AND THE SOURCE OF INCOME OR THE ASSETS ACQUIRED WHICH WERE UNDISCLOSED. MERELY, PLUCKING OUT CERTAIN FIGURES FROM THE LOOSE SHEET FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE UNACCOUNTED INCOME WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION OR CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO MAKE ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLAN T ON THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . D . K . GUPTA REPORTED IN 308 ITR 230(DEL) ALONG WITH OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS , THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF APPEAL . THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.29 LAKHS IS ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 13 DELETED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT . 7. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. D.K.GUPTA (308 ITR 230) ON SIMILAR SITUATION AFFIR MED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE LOOSE SHEETS FOUND I N THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD EXPLAINED THE NOTINGS INDICATED THEREIN WERE IN CON NECTION WITH GENERAL PROPERTY RELATED DISCUSSION AND HAD NO THING TO DO WITH ACTUAL TRANSACTION. THE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. GIRISH CHAUDHARY (296 ITR 619) HELD THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT AS TO ON WHAT BA SIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REACHED AT THE CONCLUSION THA T THE FIGURE 48 IS TO BE READ AS RUPEES 48 LAKHS. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BANSAL STRIPS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS VS. ACIT (99 ITD 177) HELD THAT IF AN I NCOME NOT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH SUCH INCOME I S CHARGEABLE TO TAX IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT W AS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ADEQUATE MATERIAL AS TO THE NATUR E AND OWNERSHIP OF THE TRANSACTION, UNDISCLOSED INCOME CA NNOT BE ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 14 ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY BY ARITHMETICALLY TOTALLING VARIOUS FIGURES JOTTED DOW N ON LOOSE DOCUMENTS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESORTING TO DEEMING PROVISIONS, DUMB DOCUMENTS OR DOCUMENTS WITH NO CERTAINTY HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.M. FINANCIERS P.LTD. VS. DCIT (107 TTJ 200 [CHENNAI]), HELD THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATE MENT MADE BY A THIRD PARTY AND THE UNSIGNED AGREEMENT AN D DUMB LOOSE SLIPS SEIZED FROM RESIDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT PAYMENT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS P URCHASE OF LAND. 8. ON GOING THROUGH THE CASE LAWS, ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE REMAND REPORT EXTRACTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. THE ADDITION WAS MA DE BASED ON MERE SURMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT THERE BEIN G ANY ITA NOS.1353 TO 1358/MDS/2012 15 MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT ASSESSEE HAVE EITHER MADE INVESTMENTS OR EARNED INCOME MATCHING WITH THE FIGU RES JOTTED DOWN IN THE LOOSE SHEETS. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED IN THE COU RSE OF SEARCH TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE MADE TH ESE INVESTMENTS OR EARNED INCOME SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE A DDITIONS MADE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE REVENU E ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY , THE 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013, CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (CHALLA NAG ENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 17 TH JUNE, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT (A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.