The AO made addition of undisclosed consideration in the hands of the Assessee. The CIT(A) granted partial relief to the Assessee and addition to the extent of amount admitted in the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act by the vendors. Against this order of CIT(A), both the Assessee as well as the Department filed appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that no incriminating material suggesting the payment of on-money consideration to the vendors of the subject land was found in the hands of the Assessee. It also observed that any addition can only be made if there is conclusive evidence brought on record by the AO. The Tribunal also noted that during cross examination         of the third party, the statements of such party were clearly contradictory and such contradictory statements had no evidentiary value. It also noted that the third party admitted the receipt of the on-money but nowhere mentioned that they received on-money consideration from the respondent Assessee or its group companies.

The Tribunal also held that onus lies upon the Department to collect cogent evidence to corroborate the notings on the loose sheets. The additions cannot be made merely on the basis of notings on the loose sheet papers which are in the nature of “dumb documents” having no evidentiary value. In the present case, as a result of search and seizure action in the case of respondent-Assessee and its group companies, no material whatsoever was seized and found indicating payment of on-money consideration at the time of purchase of the lands. Also, no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Hence the Tribunal held that Department had failed to establish that the Assessee had paid any on-money over and above stated consideration of the sale deed to the vendors of the property and directed to delete the entire addition made. (AY. 2012-13, 2014-15)