2015 (5) TMI 896 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained credits - jurisdiction of provisions of section 153C r.w.s. 153A - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute contrary to the principle of natural justice. It is very clear from the submission of the assessee that the AO has made the addition on the basis of statement given by SK Gupta. It is also admitted position that the AO has neither provided the statement of Sh. SK Gupta not provided an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition, in dispute. He should have called the Remand Report from the AO. We know that Ld. CIT(A) has no power to set aside the issue in dispute to the AO, but the deletion of the addition is also not permissible, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as explained in the impugned order. In the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO with the direction to provide the copy of the statement given by Sh.SK Gupta to the assessee and also provide an opportunity for cross examining him and decide the issue in dispute, afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for substantiating its claim before the AO. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the AO to initiate proceedings under Section 153C.
2. Validity of incriminating material for recording satisfaction under Section 153C.
3. Addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- on account of unexplained credits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the AO to Initiate Proceedings under Section 153C:
The Assessee contended that the notice under Section 153C was illegal and without jurisdiction, rendering the assessment order void. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, affirming that the AO had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings based on the documents seized from Bhushan Steel Ltd.'s premises. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO had correctly initiated proceedings after recording satisfaction.

2. Validity of Incriminating Material for Recording Satisfaction under Section 153C:
The Assessee argued that the addition made by the AO was beyond the jurisdiction of Section 153C read with Section 153A. The CIT(A) dismissed this claim, noting that the documents seized were sufficient for the AO to record satisfaction and initiate proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the AO had appropriately used the seized documents to justify the proceedings.

3. Addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- on Account of Unexplained Credits:
The AO added Rs. 32,00,000/- to the Assessee's income, treating it as unexplained money from unexplained sources, based on the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta, who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The Assessee contested this, claiming they were not provided with the statement or the opportunity to cross-examine Sh. S.K. Gupta. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the lack of cross-examination and the need for corroboration of Sh. S.K. Gupta's statement. The Tribunal found that the AO had not adhered to principles of natural justice by failing to provide the Assessee with the statement and the opportunity for cross-examination. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition and remanded the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to provide the Assessee with the statement and an opportunity for cross-examination before making a fresh decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order on the addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- and remanding the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, directing the AO to provide the necessary statements and opportunities for cross-examination to the Assessee.

← Previous Next →