9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1021 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained expenditure u/s 69C - AO making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation - Held that - Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Premanand (2006 (8) TMI 272 - ITAT JODHPUR) wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues:
Appeal challenging deletion of addition of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: 1. Facts and Assessment Proceedings: The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order dated 29.5.2013 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-35, Mumbai for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue raised the issue of deletion of addition of Rs. 20,74,957/- on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of Civil Contractor, declared a total income of Rs. 61,96,310/- in the return of income. The AO doubted the genuineness of purchases amounting to Rs. 20,74,957/- made by the assessee, leading to the addition of the same to the total income. 2. Contentions Before CIT(A): The assessee contended that the purchases were disallowed solely based on the names of suppliers listed as suspicious dealers by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. The assessee provided details of purchases, VAT account, sales tax payment, and bank details. The AO relied on a statement by a third party without giving an opportunity to cross-examine the creditors. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition citing lack of inquiry by the AO and proper documentary evidence supporting the transactions. 3. Decision of CIT(A): The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition based on several reasons: - Lack of proper inquiry by the AO. - Existence of documentary evidence supporting transactions. - Absence of doubts regarding the identity of suppliers. - Failure to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine creditors. - Non-conclusive nature of Sales Tax department findings. - Absence of evidence showing cash receipts by the assessee. - Relied on various judicial decisions to support the deletion of the addition. 4. Decision of ITAT: The ITAT upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO made the addition based on third-party statements without conducting further investigation. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting the assessee's contentions and highlighted the importance of providing the opportunity to cross-examine parties. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the ld.CIT(A)'s order. 5. Cross-objection by Assessee: The assessee filed a cross-objection in support of the ld.CIT(A)'s order. However, since the issue was decided in favor of the assessee while dismissing the revenue's appeal, the cross-objection was deemed infructuous and dismissed. In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) to delete the addition of unexplained expenditure, emphasizing the importance of proper inquiry and supporting documentary evidence in such cases. The Tribunal's decision was in line with previous judicial precedents and established principles of natural justice.
|
