2017 (8) TMI 1347 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of purchases u/s 69C - Held that - Since the assessee has satisfactorily explained that entries found in the seized documents are reflected in the regular books of account, therefore, the assessee succeeds on this preliminary issue. Thus, we refrain ourselves from adjudicating the other grounds by the assessee as well as the revenue on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition as disallowance of purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of addition on account of bogus cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of notice and assessment order under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Justification of ignoring submissions and evidence presented by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition as Disallowance of Purchases under Section 69C:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed purchases amounting to ?40,59,650/- under Section 69C, citing unverifiable and bogus transactions. The AO noted that the assessee's purchases and sales were in cash, with no independent proof of transactions. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this, noting that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of bogus purchases.

2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Bogus Cash Credit under Section 68:
The AO added ?36,36,180/- as bogus cash credit under Section 68, arguing that the sales were not supported by adequate evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, emphasizing that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the sales were fictitious.

3. Validity of Notice and Assessment Order under Section 153C:
The assessee challenged the notice and assessment order under Section 153C, arguing they were illegal and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the satisfaction note for issuing notice under Section 153C was not valid, as it lacked specifics on the nature and financial implications of the documents. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination and failed to demonstrate that the documents were incriminating. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 153C was invalid, rendering the assessment order void.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The assessee argued that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of witnesses and ignoring submissions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the AO’s reliance on statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination constituted a procedural lapse, further invalidating the assessment.

5. Justification of Ignoring Submissions and Evidence Presented by the Assessee:
The Tribunal observed that the AO disregarded the assessee’s explanations and evidence, including the fact that the entries found in the seized documents were reflected in the regular books of account. The Tribunal concluded that the AO’s actions were unjustified and based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's cross-objections, holding that the notice under Section 153C was invalid, the assessment order was void, and the additions under Sections 68 and 69C were unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice and the requirement for concrete evidence in tax assessments.

← Previous Next →