2014 (9) TMI 927 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of ingenuine loan - assessee was not able to produce documents before assessing authority to support its contentions - held that assessee had produced audited financial records for the financial year ending on 31.03.2007 and on 31.03.2008 along with the bank statements and share certificates allotted to M/s Kempoo Exports Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has also placed on record Return of Allotment in Form 2 filed before the concerned Registrar of Companies. The assessee has been able to explain the reason for non-furnishing of documents at the time of assessment proceedings. - assessee was quite amenable to reinforce its claim, but was prevented by factors beyond its control. The assessee produced documents as soon as they were made available to it by the lender. The assessee also made effort to produce the Director of the lending company, who has supported the case of assessee. In our considered opinion, the file needs revisit to the A.O. The Assessing Officer shall take into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the assessee to support its contentions and after considering the same, shall pass a fresh order on the issue, in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of ingenuine loan addition by Assessing Officer, rejection of additional evidence by CIT(Appeals) under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962, sufficiency of opportunity granted to assessee to produce documents, validity of documents produced by assessee, necessity of revisiting the case by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai pertains to an assessee-company challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai, for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing various products, filed its return declaring NIL income, but the Assessing Officer added a substantial amount on account of an alleged ingenuine loan. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal after rejecting additional evidence under Rule 46A presented by the assessee, leading to the second appeal by the assessee.

During the proceedings, the assessee argued that it had received share application money from a specific company, but faced difficulties in obtaining a confirmation letter from the company's director due to unavailability. The assessee provided various documents, including balance sheets and share certificates, to support its position. The Assessing Officer questioned the authenticity of the documents, leading to the CIT(Appeals) upholding the rejection of additional evidence.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee had made efforts to present relevant documents and even produced the director of the lending company to corroborate its claims. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations reasonable and held that the Assessing Officer should reconsider the case considering all documents provided by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of granting adequate opportunities to present evidence, the necessity of considering all relevant documents, and the need for a fair assessment based on the available facts. The decision highlights the principle of natural justice and the obligation of tax authorities to fairly evaluate the evidence presented by taxpayers.