2016 (4) TMI 506 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of additional evidence u/Rule 46A of the Rules - Held that - The perusal of tabulated details filed by the assessee reflected that many of amounts have been received from his father and other amounts which are deposited in cash in Bank of Maharashtra are on account of investment to be made in Shree Om Sainath Car on Rent Pvt. Ltd. Once the assessee has given an explanation that he was receiving these amounts and further made investments, then the Assessing Officer should have made enquiries from the other parties to verify the claim of the assessee. However, we find that the explanation of the assessee has not been considered by the Assessing Officer in proper perspective nor proper opportunity was given to the assessee to furnish complete evidences. Further claim of assessee to have received the amounts from his father have also been not accepted, inspite of various evidences filed. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, where the assessee before us has furnished several documents / evidences, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice demand that an opportunity of hearing should be allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, we set-aside the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo after considering the evidences available with the assessee and after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee and the Revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals filed by Revenue and assessee against CIT(A) order for AY 2009-10 under section 143(3) of IT Act - Revenue challenging deletion of cash deposits addition in Bank of Maharashtra by CIT(A), while assessee challenging sustenance of addition under section 68 based on bank statements.

Analysis:
1. Revenue's Appeal:
- Revenue challenged CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 19,50,000 addition for unexplained cash deposits in Bank of Maharashtra, arguing lack of reasons for admitting additional evidence and failure to specify admissibility circumstances under Rule 46A(2) and (1) respectively.
- The Assessing Officer treated cash deposits as income from unexplained sources under section 68 due to lack of strong evidence on genuineness and creditworthiness of parties, despite explanations by the assessee.
- CIT(A) partly upheld the addition, accepting Rs. 19,64,500 and deleting Rs. 19,50,000, based on additional evidences furnished by the assessee, which the Assessing Officer rejected as not submitted during assessment proceedings.
- The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's failure to consider documentary evidence and denial of reasonable opportunity to the assessee a violation of natural justice, setting aside the matter for fresh consideration with full evidentiary hearing.

2. Assessee's Appeal:
- Assessee contested the addition of Rs. 40,76,600 under section 68, claiming it was based on bank statements without proper consideration of submitted documentary evidence and without affording a fair hearing.
- The assessee sought admission of additional evidence regarding cash gifts from father and investments received from another party, which the Assessing Officer rejected without adequate justification.
- The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanations and evidences supporting cash deposits, emphasizing the need for a thorough inquiry by the Assessing Officer and proper consideration of all available evidence.
- Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal allowed both Revenue's and assessee's appeals for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment with due consideration to all evidences and a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case effectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, thorough examination of evidence, and adherence to natural justice principles in tax assessments, leading to the setting aside of the matter for a fresh determination in line with these principles.