{"id":1163,"date":"2025-03-06T10:18:15","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T05:48:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/?p=1163"},"modified":"2025-03-06T10:18:18","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T05:48:18","slug":"seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ITAT Delhi Ruling: M\/s Sanmati Jewellers vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, Delhi<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>(ITA No. 3031\/Del\/2022, dated 28.02.2025)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center\"><strong>Background of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>M\/s Sanmati Jewellers, a partnership firm engaged in trading bullion, jewelry, and silverware, originally declared an income of \u20b945,17,630\/- in its income tax return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A search operation under\u00a0<strong>Section 132<\/strong>\u00a0was conducted on\u00a0<strong>05.01.2017<\/strong>\u00a0at the premises of\u00a0<strong>Jindal Bullion Ltd. (JBL)<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>During the search, digital data from\u00a0<strong>Hazir Johri Software<\/strong>\u00a0was seized from\u00a0<strong>Mr. Kushagra Jindal<\/strong>, the promoter of JBL. This data allegedly recorded both accounted (<strong>pakka<\/strong>) and unaccounted (<strong>kaccha<\/strong>) transactions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A ledger titled\u00a0<strong>&#8220;Sanmati 1586&#8221;<\/strong>, purportedly related to the assessee, contained both\u00a0<strong>banking and cash transactions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded\u00a0<strong>satisfaction on 04.02.2021<\/strong>\u00a0and issued a\u00a0<strong>notice under Section 153C on 05.02.2021<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Additions Made by AO and CIT(A)<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The AO made the following additions, which were later upheld by the CIT(A):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>\u20b967,16,600\/-<\/strong>\u00a0added as the\u00a0<strong>peak balance<\/strong>\u00a0of alleged\u00a0<strong>unaccounted cash payments<\/strong>\u00a0made by the assessee to JBL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>\u20b919,37,985\/-<\/strong>\u00a0added on account of an assumed\u00a0<strong>2% gross profit margin<\/strong>\u00a0on alleged\u00a0<strong>cash purchases of bullion<\/strong>\u00a0from JBL.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>The CIT(A) justified these additions on the following grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Since the\u00a0<strong>banking transactions<\/strong>\u00a0in the ledger were accepted as genuine, the\u00a0<strong>cash transactions<\/strong>\u00a0recorded therein should also be considered valid.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The seized digital data enjoys a\u00a0<strong>presumption of truth<\/strong>\u00a0under\u00a0<strong>Section 292C<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The request for\u00a0<strong>cross-examination of Ms. Parul Ahluwalia (JBL employee)<\/strong>\u00a0was denied on the ground that her statement did not constitute primary evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Legal Issues and ITAT Findings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>A. Limited Applicability of Presumption Under Section 292C<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ITAT Observations:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>Hazir Johri software<\/strong>\u00a0was seized\u00a0<strong>from JBL\u2019s premises<\/strong>, not from the assessee.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The presumption of truth under\u00a0<strong>Section 292C<\/strong>\u00a0applies\u00a0<strong>only to the person from whom the documents are seized (JBL),<\/strong>\u00a0and not to a third party like\u00a0<strong>Sanmati Jewellers<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Without\u00a0<strong>independent corroborative evidence<\/strong>, the data from JBL\u2019s software\u00a0<strong>cannot be solely relied upon<\/strong>\u00a0to make additions in the hands of the assessee.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Supporting Case Laws:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Rajeshwar Singh Yadav vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 1909 &amp; 1910\/Del\/2022, ITAT Delhi)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The presumption under\u00a0<strong>Section 292C<\/strong>\u00a0is\u00a0<strong>limited to the person from whom the material is seized<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>CIT vs. Babu Mohan Arya Smarak Educational Trust (42 taxmann.com 255, Allahabad HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Documents seized from a third party do not automatically implicate another person<\/strong>\u00a0unless corroborative evidence exists.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>B. Absence of Corroborative Evidence for Alleged Cash Transactions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ITAT Observations:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>assessee categorically denied<\/strong>\u00a0engaging in cash transactions and explained that entries in JBL\u2019s ledger were\u00a0<strong>erroneously recorded under its name<\/strong>\u00a0due to its\u00a0<strong>introduction of a broker (Subodh Kumar Jain) to JBL<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No\u00a0<strong>bills, vouchers, stock registers, or invoices<\/strong>\u00a0were found linking the alleged\u00a0<strong>cash purchases<\/strong>\u00a0to the assessee.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Revenue failed to establish that the transactions recorded in JBL\u2019s ledger\u00a0<strong>exclusively belonged to the assessee<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Supporting Case Laws:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>CIT v. D.K. Gupta (308 ITR 230, Delhi HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Seized material that constitutes\u00a0<strong>&#8220;dumb documents&#8221;<\/strong>\u00a0without independent corroboration\u00a0<strong>cannot be the basis for additions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619, Delhi HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Unverified notings<\/strong>\u00a0in seized documents\u00a0<strong>cannot be the sole basis for making additions<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO (39 ITD 183, ITAT Delhi)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the absence of\u00a0<strong>independent verification<\/strong>, additions based on\u00a0<strong>loose papers<\/strong>\u00a0cannot be sustained.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>C. Unjustified Delay in Recording Satisfaction Note \u2013 Invalid 153C Proceedings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ITAT Observations:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>search at JBL\u2019s premises<\/strong>\u00a0took place on\u00a0<strong>05.01.2017<\/strong>, yet the\u00a0<strong>satisfaction note was recorded only on 04.02.2021<\/strong>\u2014a delay of\u00a0<strong>more than four years<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judicial precedents establish that a\u00a0<strong>delay beyond 9-10 months<\/strong>\u00a0in recording satisfaction\u00a0<strong>renders 153C proceedings invalid<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Supporting Case Laws:<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>CIT vs. Bharat Bhushan Jain (370 ITR 695, Delhi HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A\u00a0<strong>delay exceeding 10 months<\/strong>\u00a0in recording satisfaction was held\u00a0<strong>invalid<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>PCIT vs. Jitendra H Modi HUF (403 ITR 110, Gujarat HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>153C proceedings were annulled<\/strong>\u00a0due to a\u00a0<strong>9-month delay<\/strong>\u00a0in recording satisfaction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Radhey Shyam Bansal (337 ITR 217, Delhi HC)<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Courts have consistently ruled that\u00a0<strong>excessive delays<\/strong>\u00a0in recording satisfaction\u00a0<strong>invalidate 153C proceedings<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>ITAT Ruling and Final Decision<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The ITAT\u00a0<strong>deleted the additions<\/strong>\u00a0of\u00a0<strong>\u20b967,16,600\/- and \u20b919,37,985\/-<\/strong>\u00a0due to a\u00a0<strong>lack of corroborative evidence<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The\u00a0<strong>entire assessment under Section 153C was annulled<\/strong>\u00a0on the ground of\u00a0<strong>unjustified delay<\/strong>\u00a0in recording the satisfaction note.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key Takeaways from the Ruling:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2705&nbsp;<strong>Presumption under Section 292C<\/strong>&nbsp;does not extend to third parties unless corroborated by independent evidence.<br>\u2705&nbsp;<strong>Mere existence of entries in a seized ledger<\/strong>&nbsp;does not justify additions&nbsp;<strong>without proper verification<\/strong>.<br>\u2705&nbsp;<strong>Significant delay<\/strong>&nbsp;in recording&nbsp;<strong>satisfaction for 153C proceedings<\/strong>&nbsp;renders the assessment&nbsp;<strong>invalid<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This ruling reinforces the principle that&nbsp;<strong>unverified third-party records cannot be the sole basis for additions in the absence of independent corroboration<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ITAT Delhi Ruling: M\/s Sanmati Jewellers vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7, Delhi (ITA No. 3031\/Del\/2022, dated 28.02.2025) Background of the Case M\/s Sanmati Jewellers, a partnership firm engaged in trading bullion,&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1164,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-income-tax-act-1961"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"CA ALOK KUMAR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"836\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"420\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"CA ALOK KUMAR\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"CA ALOK KUMAR\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"CA ALOK KUMAR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657\"},\"headline\":\"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\"},\"wordCount\":777,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Income Tax Act 1961\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\",\"name\":\"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00\",\"description\":\"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png\",\"width\":836,\"height\":420,\"caption\":\"ITAT Delhi Ruling\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/\",\"name\":\"CA ALOK KUMAR\",\"description\":\"FCA,AICA,AML SPECILAIST,LLM,ERI-INCOMETAX\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657\"},\"alternateName\":\"CA Firm in Dwarka\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Person\",\"Organization\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657\",\"name\":\"CA ALOK KUMAR\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/77835prc62484-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/77835prc62484-1.png\",\"width\":134,\"height\":100,\"caption\":\"CA ALOK KUMAR\"},\"logo\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\"},\"description\":\"Fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Working as a Partner of most reputed CA firm name as S.K. Mehta &amp; Co\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/alokkrca2000\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/ca-alok-kumar-8146b915\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/author\/caalok\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR","description":"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR","og_description":"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C","og_url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/","og_site_name":"CA ALOK KUMAR","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan","article_published_time":"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":836,"height":420,"url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"CA ALOK KUMAR","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"CA ALOK KUMAR","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/"},"author":{"name":"CA ALOK KUMAR","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657"},"headline":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation","datePublished":"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/"},"wordCount":777,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png","articleSection":["Income Tax Act 1961"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/","url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/","name":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation - CA ALOK KUMAR","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png","datePublished":"2025-03-06T05:48:15+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-06T05:48:18+00:00","description":"ITAT Delhi Ruling: Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax AdditionThe ITAT Delhi quashed the \u20b986 lakh addition against Sanmati Jewellers, ruling that unverified seized data from a third party (Jindal Bullion Ltd.) cannot justify tax additions under Section 153C. The tribunal emphasized that presumption under Section 292C applies only to the person from whom documents are seized. Additionally, the four-year delay in recording satisfaction made the 153C proceedings invalid. This ruling reinforces the importance of independent corroborative evidence in tax assessments.#IncomeTax #ITATRuling #Section153C #TaxLitigation #SeizedData #TaxLaw #PresumptionUnder292C","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Screenshot-2025-03-06-at-11.17.05\u202fAM.png","width":836,"height":420,"caption":"ITAT Delhi Ruling"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/seized-data-alone-is-not-enough-for-tax-addition-a-game-changer-for-tax-litigation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Seized Data Alone Is Not Enough for Tax Addition-A Game Changer for Tax Litigation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#website","url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/","name":"CA ALOK KUMAR","description":"FCA,AICA,AML SPECILAIST,LLM,ERI-INCOMETAX","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657"},"alternateName":"CA Firm in Dwarka","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Person","Organization"],"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/6ea496b3e634d37b3de236ed1bfaf657","name":"CA ALOK KUMAR","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/77835prc62484-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/77835prc62484-1.png","width":134,"height":100,"caption":"CA ALOK KUMAR"},"logo":{"@id":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/"},"description":"Fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and Working as a Partner of most reputed CA firm name as S.K. Mehta &amp; Co","sameAs":["https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ca.aloknandan","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/alokkrca2000\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/ca-alok-kumar-8146b915\/"],"url":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/author\/caalok\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1163","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1163"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1163\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1165,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1163\/revisions\/1165"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1164"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/caalokkumar.com\/my-writing\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}