2020 (2) TMI 1424 - SC - Income Tax

Existence on asset and allowability of depreciation - Bogus transaction - asset put to use of business or not - findings recorded by AO in block assessment - documents found for lease transactions of non existent asset - Documents on which reliance has been placed not given for cross examine - HELD THAT - It is unnecessary to dilate on the factual matrix of the case or analyse the arguments advanced by both sides except to observe that we disagree with the approach of the High Court as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Documents on which reliance has been placed by the respective parties, we would deem it appropriate to relegate the parties before the First Appellate Authority. Be it noted that one of the issues involved is about not extending opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer. If the Department wants to rely on their evidence, it may be necessary to provide opportunity of cross- examination of these witnesses to the appellant, which can be done by the First Appellate Authority itself, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore. We say so because both parties intend to rely on some additional documents and circumstances. The First Appellate Authority may reconsider the matter afresh on its own merits in accordance with law including by examining the additional material/circumstances to be produced by the parties. In other words, the entire matter will have to be considered by the First Appellate Authority afresh by giving fair opportunity to both sides to espouse their claim in the remanded appeal(s).

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses not extended to the appellant by the Assessing Officer.
2. Disagreement with the approach of the High Court and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
3. Setting aside the orders of the High Court, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority.
4. Direction to the Department regarding arrears of demand and attachment notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, observed that the factual matrix of the case and arguments advanced by both sides were unnecessary to delve into for the nature of the order proposed. The Court disagreed with the approach of the High Court and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. One critical issue highlighted was the failure to extend the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer to the appellant. The Court directed that if the Department intends to rely on such evidence, the appellant must be given the chance to cross-examine these witnesses, which should be facilitated by the First Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore. Both parties were allowed to present additional documents and circumstances for reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority.

2. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Authority for a fresh review on its own merits in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for a fair opportunity for both parties to present their claims in the remanded appeal(s) to ensure a comprehensive reconsideration of the entire matter. The directive was for the First Appellate Authority to decide the appeal(s) expeditiously after reevaluation.

3. In addition to the above, the Court addressed the issue raised by the appellant's counsel regarding communications from the Department demanding arrears of payment and an attachment notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Court directed the Department not to enforce these communications until a decision on the remanded appeal(s) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is made and instructed the Department to comply with that decision. Subsequently, the appeal(s) and pending applications were disposed of based on the terms outlined in the judgment, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the legal matters at hand.