9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A). 3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act: The first issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 7,16,02,224/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO required the assessee to submit confirmations from parties from whom money was received as share application money or loans. The assessee failed to furnish full particulars, PAN, and source of funds. Consequently, the AO treated the sums credited as unexplained and added them to the income of the assessee. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence, including confirmation letters, proof of identity, affidavits, and bank statements. The CIT(A) observed that the AO never explicitly asked for confirmations during the assessment proceedings. After considering the additional evidence, the CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 79,52,500/- and deleted the balance of Rs. 4,95,82,259/-. The CIT(A) found that most advances were received through cheques and were related to plot bookings, which were verified by the AO in the remand report. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for most parties. However, for the remaining Rs. 79,52,500/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits and bank statements, to explain the sources of funds. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire addition under Section 68. 2. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A): The second issue concerns the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not ask for confirmations during the assessment proceedings and that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from providing the required details due to the illness of the main director. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, considering it essential for the determination of the assessee's income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence, emphasizing that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to produce confirmations during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial for a fair assessment and justified the CIT(A)'s decision. 3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act: The third issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 5,13,95,252/- under Section 40A(3) for payments made in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The AO disallowed the payments, stating they were not covered under Rule 6DD exceptions. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 3,42,60,562/-, allowing relief for payments made for stamp duty and registration charges. The Tribunal examined the payments and found that many were made in villages not served by any bank, as certified by the village Sarpanch. The Tribunal referred to Rule 6DD(g), which exempts payments made in villages without banking facilities from disallowance under Section 40A(3). The Tribunal concluded that the payments were genuine and necessary due to the lack of banking facilities, thus falling under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(g). Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance under Section 40A(3). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions under Section 68 and disallowances under Section 40A(3), while dismissing the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and grant relief. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair assessment and the necessity of considering additional evidence when the assessee is prevented by reasonable cause from providing it during the assessment proceedings.
|
