2015 (7) TMI 190 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of CIT A order - Disallowance of unexplained investment - Held that - CIT(A) observed that the amount of ₹ 10.63 lakhs form part of the regular sales recorded in the books and hence cannot be termed as unexplained receipt/investment in the hands of the assessee. He observed that most of these documents and evidences were submitted before the AO and the AO has not made any adverse comments. No independent enquiry was conducted by the AO. In any event the amount of ₹ 10.63 lakhs comprising of small denomination Demand Drafts of ₹ 19,500/- each were sent back to the AO for verification. The other additions were deleted. - D.R. could not controvert any of the factual findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of addition of unexplained investment
- Validity of reopening of assessment
- Admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A)
- Justification of setting aside the matter for fresh adjudication

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)-IV, New Delhi pertaining to the Assessment Year 2003-04. The primary issue was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 55,02,380 made by the AO on account of unexplained investment. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment without valid reasons and compliance with procedural requirements.

2. The facts revealed that the assessee, a trading company, filed its return declaring 'nil' income which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently, a notice under section 148 was issued, leading to the addition of Rs. 55,27,737 as unexplained investment by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening but allowed the claim of the assessee on merits, resulting in the appeal by the Revenue and a Cross Objection by the assessee.

3. During the proceedings, the Senior DR for the Revenue argued that additional evidence was admitted by the CIT(A) without proper verification, urging for a fresh adjudication by the AO. Conversely, the assessee's counsel opposed this, stating that all relevant information was already submitted to the AO during assessment. The CIT(A) had detailed the specific amounts received by the assessee and the corresponding transactions, indicating proper documentation provided to the AO.

4. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had submitted substantial evidence including sale deeds, confirmations, and ledger accounts to support the transactions in question. The AO did not raise adverse comments or conduct independent inquiries to challenge the claims made by the assessee. The CIT(A) concluded that the request for setting aside the matter for fresh adjudication lacked merit, and upheld the deletion of the additions made by the AO.

5. Ultimately, the ITAT upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, it was deemed infructuous due to the decision on the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection were dismissed.

In conclusion, the ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of unexplained investment, emphasizing the adequacy of evidence provided by the assessee and the lack of adverse findings by the AO. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper documentation and the need for thorough examination by tax authorities before making additions to the income of taxpayers.