2016 (1) TMI 230 - HC - Income Tax

Benami transaction - there was no evidence of any type whether Shri Nalnish Aggarwal was a genuine party to the agreement and the payments were actually made by him as per AO - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - We find that the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal had not adverted to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer while holding that the transaction on behalf of the Nalnish Aggarwal was not benami. The reasons recorded by CIT(A) and the Tribunal are neither cogent nor convincing on the basis of which the findings of the Assessing Officer could be validly set aside. Accordingly the orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) to decide it afresh after hearing learned counsel for the parties in accordance with law. Needless to say the CIT(A) shall deal with all the objections on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had held Shri Nalnish Aggarwal to be benami of the assessee. However it shall be open for the respondent-assessee to produce any evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 to substantiate that the transaction was genuine and Shri Nalnish Aggarwal was not benami of the assessee - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer, claiming the assessee cannot be said to be benami of Shri Nalnish Aggarwal?
- Whether the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence of genuineness of the payment by Shri Nalnish Aggarwal?
- Whether the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in deleting the addition in the absence of evidence of ownership of the property at Panipat, the source of investment of the assessee?

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenged the ITAT's deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding the alleged benami relationship between the assessee and Shri Nalnish Aggarwal. The Assessing Officer had added Rs. 25 lakhs to the assessee's income, considering Shri Nalnish Aggarwal as not genuine due to various discrepancies. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, concluding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish Shri Nalnish Aggarwal's existence and separate identity, thus rejecting the benami claim.

2. The Assessing Officer's decision was based on inquiries showing discrepancies in Shri Nalnish Aggarwal's accounts and lack of evidence of his existence or involvement in the transactions. However, the CIT(A) found the documents provided by the assessee, such as sale deeds and bank documents, to be genuine and not fabricated. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the authenticity of the documents and the lack of evidence to support the benami claim.

3. The High Court set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal did not adequately address the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for treating the transaction as benami. The Court directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case, allowing the assessee to present evidence under Rule 46A to prove the transaction's genuineness and disprove the benami allegation. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of all objections raised by the Assessing Officer.