9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 1215 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - CIT (Appeals) correctly deleting the addition on the basis of additional evidence admitted and after proper verification of the same. CIT (Appeals) has himself has verified the evidence and has recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit in the bank account has been explained by the assessee with the help of books of accounts and bank account of proprietorship concerns. Under such circumstances no purpose will be served by remitting back the matter to the assessing officer when the ld. CIT (Appeals) has himself had verified the evidence and recorded a finding of fact that the source of deposit was duly verified. Merely because the assessing officer had objected would not be a ground for remitting the case back to the assessing officer particularly when the matter has been examined and decided by the ld. CIT (Appeals).
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,52,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits. 2. Violation of Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, regarding admission of additional evidence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 14,52,000/- Made on Account of Unexplained Cash Deposits: The Revenue's appeal centered on the deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,52,000/- which was treated as unexplained cash deposits by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO received AIR information indicating a transaction of Rs. 14,52,000/- and issued a notice under section 142(1) to the assessee. The notice was treated as served since it was not returned. Subsequent notices were also issued, but no compliance was made by the assessee, leading the AO to complete the assessment ex-parte under section 144, adding Rs. 14,52,000/- as unexplained income. On appeal, the assessee argued that the assessment under section 144 was without jurisdiction as the assessee was regularly assessed by a different ward. It was also contended that the notice under section 142(1) was issued beyond the relevant assessment year and was not properly served. The assessee claimed that the deposits were from withdrawals made from the bank accounts of his proprietorship concerns and provided additional evidence to support this claim. The CIT (A) admitted the additional evidence and deleted the addition, noting that the deposits were duly reflected in the books of accounts and that the AO had not provided any material to contradict the assessee's explanation. The CIT (A) concluded that the cash deposits were explained by bank withdrawals and business receipts, and thus, the addition was unjustified. 2. Violation of Rule 46-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962: The Revenue contended that the CIT (A) violated Rule 46-A by admitting additional evidence without giving the AO a proper opportunity to examine it. The CIT (A) had forwarded the additional evidence to the AO for comments, who objected to its admission. However, the CIT (A) justified the admission of the evidence, stating that the assessee had reasonable cause for not presenting it earlier and that it was necessary for rendering substantial justice. The tribunal noted that the CIT (A) had the authority to admit additional evidence if it was necessary for a fair decision. The CIT (A) had verified the evidence and recorded findings that the deposits were explained by the assessee's books of accounts and bank statements. The tribunal held that the CIT (A) acted within his powers and provided a speaking order, thus rejecting the Revenue's claim that the order was cryptic. The tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Smt. Prabhawati S. Shah Vs. CIT, which clarified that Rule 46-A restricts the assessee's right to produce new evidence but does not limit the appellate authority's power to call for additional evidence if necessary for justice. The tribunal affirmed that the CIT (A) had exercised his discretion judiciously and that the additional evidence was crucial for deciding the appeal. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 14,52,000/- and admitting the additional evidence. The tribunal found that the CIT (A) had provided a thorough and justified order after proper verification of the evidence. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 26th August 2011.
|
