9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 682 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of income u/s 44AD - unexplained cash deposit - Additional Evidences - Rule 46A No evidence can be furnished unless conditions enumerated in clause A to D of sub-rule (1) are available - Held That - Sufficient opportunities were not granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. He has completed the inquiry for the purpose of the assessment order within just two months. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the impugned orders and remit all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication.
Issues:
Assessment of income under section 44AD - Addition of unexplained cash deposits - Admissibility of additional evidence before CIT(Appeals) - Compliance with Rule 46A of ITAT's Rules. Assessment of Income under Section 44AD: The assessee appealed against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) confirming the addition of Rs. 11,98,100 to the income for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee argued that the income should have been assessed at 8% under section 44AD on gross contract receipts of Rs. 17,99,773, resulting in an income of Rs. 1,38,400. The Assessing Officer had determined the taxable income at Rs. 18,07,660, making additions based on unexplained deposits in bank accounts. The assessee claimed to be a civil contractor, seeking to demonstrate that the cash deposits were contract receipts. However, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the additional evidence, stating that the documents submitted were not worth admitting. The dispute centered on whether the assessee's income should be assessed under section 44AD as a civil contractor. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits: The Assessing Officer added Rs. 16,98,100 as unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts, leading to the total taxable income determination. The assessee contended that proper hearing opportunities were not provided by the Assessing Officer, and the assessment proceedings were concluded hastily. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition, emphasizing the lack of independent evidence or third-party documents to support the claim of being engaged in civil contract work. The Assessing Officer doubted the authenticity of bills and vouchers submitted by the assessee during the remand proceedings. Admissibility of Additional Evidence before CIT(Appeals): Rule 46A of ITAT's Rules governed the admissibility of additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals). The rule outlined specific circumstances under which additional evidence could be permitted, including situations where the Assessing Officer refused to admit relevant evidence or did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. The CIT(Appeals) had the discretion to allow additional evidence after recording reasons for its admission. The rule also mandated that the Assessing Officer be given an opportunity to examine and rebut any additional evidence presented by the assessee. In this case, the CIT(Appeals) called for remand reports and rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing insufficiency, which was deemed as not following the correct procedure outlined in Rule 46A. Compliance with Rule 46A of ITAT's Rules: The ITAT emphasized the importance of adhering to Rule 46A, which regulated the admission of additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals). The rule required specific conditions to be met for allowing additional evidence, including the Assessing Officer's refusal to admit relevant evidence or lack of opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer did not grant sufficient opportunities to the assessee and concluded the inquiry hastily. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the orders and remitted all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, ensuring both parties had a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for proper compliance with procedural rules and ensuring adequate opportunities for both parties to present evidence and arguments during assessment proceedings.
|
