2013 (11) TMI 1483 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash payment Held that - No evidence of any payment having been made by the assessee - The assessee could not reconcile the difference in account of sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet and as per sundry creditors the entire amount outstanding was paid in cash - No evidence was produced by the assessee to substantiate the fact that no payment has been made by it to the sundry creditors Decided against assessee. Bogus purchases Held that - The assessee failed to furnish any reasonable and sustainable evidence regarding genuineness of the purchasesdespite several oppurtunities given by the CIT(A) Also the assessee could not improve its case before the Tribunal for establishing genuineness of the claimed purchases except producing one bill The CIT(A) was justified in adding this - The AO has not addressed the submission of the assessee regarding allowing adjustment of the loss on account of rejection from debtor - The same cannot be done at the appellate stage as the assessee never claimed this amount in its return of income The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against first appellate order confirming addition of alleged unexplained cash payment and aggregate addition.
2. Validity of impugned assessment order framed without complying with mandatory conditions.
3. Treatment of original assessment order as defective and subsequent actions by AO.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the first appellate order on grounds of confirming additions of unexplained cash payment and aggregate amount. The appellant withdrew grounds 1 & 2, leading to rejection of remaining grounds. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the aggregate addition not being raised in the first appeal. The Tribunal found the original assessment order defective due to reasons for reopening not provided to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the defect and pass a fresh assessment order.

2. The key issue revolved around whether the entire original assessment order was defective or only the part related to reopening proceedings. The Tribunal clarified that a defective order cannot be enforced for recovery of additions. The Tribunal emphasized that the whole order is defective if any part is found defective. The AO was directed to consider objections from the assessee before proceeding further. The Tribunal intended for the AO to conduct a de novo assessment on merits after rectifying the defect.

3. The AO made an addition for bogus purchases, which the CIT(A) reduced based on evidence provided by the assessee. However, the AO did not address the claim for adjustment of loss on account of debtor rejection. The Tribunal set aside the matter for the AO to evaluate this claim after considering the assessment for the previous year. The Tribunal allowed the ground for statistical purposes. The AO also added an amount for unexplained cash payments, which the appellant failed to substantiate. The Tribunal upheld this addition as the appellant could not provide evidence to refute the payments. The appeal was partly allowed, with the order pronounced in November 2013.