2013 (5) TMI 721 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of unexplained cash credit - CIT (A) deleted the addition restricting the addition to business income @ 11% GP - Held that - AO had made addition on the basis that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank account & has not detected any other source of income during the assessment proceedings as transpired from the records by making such finding fact that CIT(A) has not called for remand report from the AO when a specific finding has been given by the AO that the assessee has not produced any document, books of account and other details for verification. Thus this issue should be remitted back to the file of AO for fresh decision. Assessee before AO did not produce the requisite details despite a specific request however, CIT(A) has observed that the assessee had produced some of the confirmations along with their PAN in respect of creditors disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee has produced fresh evidence CIT(A) ought to have taken a remand report from the AO. Therefore restore the matter back to the AO for fresh decision. Revenue s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of unexplained cash credit and addition to business income
2. Disallowance of unexplained creditors and subsequent restriction

Issue 1: Disallowance of unexplained cash credit and addition to business income

The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition made on account of disallowance of unexplained cash credit and the subsequent restriction of the addition to business income at 11% GP. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 45.50 lakh on the basis of cash deposit in the assessee's saving account and Rs. 6,50,700 on account of sundry creditors. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details, documents, and books of account to verify the correctness of the account. The CIT(A) found that the amount credited in the bank account could be linked to the business the assessee was engaged in, considering the nature of the business and absence of other detected sources of income. The Tribunal concluded that the issue required remittance back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Disallowance of unexplained creditors and subsequent restriction

The second issue revolved around the deletion of an addition made on account of unexplained creditors and its subsequent restriction by the CIT(A). The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition and restricting it to a lower amount without calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not provided the requisite details despite a specific request by the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) noted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee had produced some confirmations along with PAN in respect of the disallowed creditors. The Tribunal held that a remand report should have been sought by the CIT(A) before making a decision. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes in both issues, directing a fresh decision by the Assessing Officer in light of the evidentiary and procedural considerations discussed during the proceedings.