9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2538 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - additional evidence - assessee-company has supported the impugned order of CIT(A) stating that there was no additional evidence filed by the assessee before CIT(A) and CIT(A) having given relief to the assessee relying on the same evidence which was available before AO, there is no violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules - Held that - Keeping in view this assertion made by the assessee-company in its CO which was reiterated by Ld. Counsel of assessee, opportunity was given to Ld. DR to point out specifically the additional evidence, if any, filed by assessee before CIT(A) for the first time which has been relied by the CIT(A) to give relief to the assessee. After having gone through the relevant assessment record, Ld. DR has not been able to point out any such additional evidence filed by the assessee and relied upon by the CIT(A) to give relief to the assessee. Ld. Counsel for assessee on the other hand, has taken us through the impugned order of CIT(A) to show that there was no new evidence filed by the assessee for the first time before CIT(A) and this position clearly evident from the order of the CIT(A) has not been rebutted or controverted out by the Ld. DR. We therefore find no merit in this appeal filed by Revenue and upholding the impugned order of CIT(A), we dismiss the said appeal. - Decided against revenue
Issues:
1. Disputed addition of unexplained investment in construction. 2. Violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. Issue 1: Disputed addition of unexplained investment in construction: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata regarding the addition of &8377; 3.48 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of alleged unexplained investment in construction. The AO determined the total income of the assessee at &8377; 39,24,108/- after making additions to the income declared by the assessee. The CIT set aside the assessment with a direction to reconcile the expenditure incurred by the assessee on construction with respective source of funds claimed to be available. The assessee claimed sources of funds including share capital, share premium, internal accrual, advance, and current liability to cover the construction expenditure. However, the AO found no link between the share capital received and the investment in construction, treating it as unexplained and making an addition of &8377; 3.48 crores to the total income. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the evidence provided by the assessee, including fund flow statements, bank accounts, and details of share application money received, showing that the construction expenses were covered by the available funds. The CIT(A) concluded that the AO's observation lacked evidence and directed the AO to delete the addition made under section 69 of the IT Act. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Issue 2: Violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without giving the AO an opportunity to verify new evidence filed by the assessee, contrary to Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The assessee argued that no additional evidence was submitted before the CIT(A) and the relief was based on existing evidence available to the AO. The Tribunal examined the assessment record and found no new evidence filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) that was relied upon to grant relief. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to identify any additional evidence and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The CO filed by the assessee became infructuous due to the Tribunal's decision, and both the appeal of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee were dismissed. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the decisions made by the authorities and the Tribunal.
|
