2017 (5) TMI 119 - AT - Income Tax

Admission of additional evidence u/r 46A - Dis-allowance of interest expenditure - set off of interest expenditure against salary income - According to the assessee he has not made investment for earning exempt income, rather, he has made investment for the purpose of business - Held that - the AO has never asked assessee to produce copies of acknowledge exhibiting return filed by the lenders. He has issued one SCN to the assessee and thereafter issued summons under section 133(6). He did not confront the assessee whether summons have been served upon lender or any other evidence would be required. The reason for this failure was paucity of time with the AO. He concluded the assessment proceedings within 20 days after seriously taking cognizance of the issues considered in the assessment order. To our mind conditions enumerated at sub-clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A are available in the present case. Apart from that an irregularity has crept in the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A) vide which the ld.CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the application moved for permission to lead additional evidence - this irregularity is required to be removed and proceeding is to be instituted at the stage where this irregularity has happened. Matter remanded back to CIT(A) - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to CIT(A)'s order for not adjudicating relief claimed by the appellant.
2. Non-consideration of additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A.
3. Disallowance of interest expense under section 14 A of the Act.
4. Disallowance made under section 68 of the Act.

Issue 1: Challenge to CIT(A)'s order for not adjudicating relief claimed by the appellant:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order for not addressing the relief claimed in the appeal. The AO made additions to the income of the assessee, and the assessment order was passed without comprehensive analysis. The appellant contended that the AO did not consider the explanations provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld certain disallowances without detailed reasoning. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in analytical discussion and set aside the issues for re-adjudication.

Issue 2: Non-consideration of additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A:
The assessee moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules seeking permission to submit additional evidence. The AO did not accept certain evidence due to procedural issues. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to address this application, which was crucial for the appeal. Rule 46A conditions were found to be fulfilled, and the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence, confront the AO, and re-examine the case based on the new evidence.

Issue 3: Disallowance of interest expense under section 14 A of the Act:
The AO disallowed interest expenditure claimed by the assessee, stating it could not be set against salary income. The assessee argued that the investment was made for business purposes, not for earning exempt income. The AO's assessment lacked detailed analysis, and the CIT(A)'s findings were not comprehensive. The Tribunal set aside this issue for re-adjudication by the CIT(A).

Issue 4: Disallowance made under section 68 of the Act:
The AO made additions under section 68 due to alleged unexplained cash credits. The assessee provided confirmations and bank account details of the creditors, but the AO did not accept this evidence fully. The Tribunal noted procedural irregularities and the failure of the AO to address certain aspects. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine this issue and consider the evidence presented by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and set aside various issues for re-adjudication by the CIT(A) to ensure a more thorough analysis and consideration of all relevant evidence and arguments.

← Previous Next →