2017 (5) TMI 717 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 69C on account of alleged unaccounted expenditure - Held that - The contention of the assessee is that the difference in question has occurred due to the reason that cheque dated 19.5.2004, 20.7.2004 and 12.5.2005 for ₹ 4,850, ₹ 2,50,000/- and ₹ 10,161/- were not honoured and one bill was accounted in the name of some other party. The assessee has pointed out that the authorities below have not considered this aspect while deciding this issue. We also notice that the assessee has explained the said reason in its written submissions dated 19.10 2012 made before the Ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that this aspect is required to be considered afresh in the interest of justice. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and send this issue back to the AO with the direction to decide this issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid contention, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2005-06.
- Addition u/s. 69C on account of alleged unaccounted expenditure.
- Admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT (A) without allowing opportunity to the Assessing Officer.
- Deletion of addition u/s 69C in respect of purchases from parties without confirmation from the parties.

Issue 1: Cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2005-06:
- The ITAT Mumbai considered cross appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue against the order dated 17/05/2013 passed by the Ld. CIT (A)-19, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2005-06. The Ld. CIT (A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT set aside the issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication based on additional evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT (A).

Issue 2: Addition u/s. 69C on account of alleged unaccounted expenditure:
- The assessee challenged the addition made by the AO under section 69C for unexplained expenditure. The Ld. CIT (A) partly confirmed the disallowance. The ITAT considered the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the impugned order. The Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that certain additions made on account of purchases were not contested due to small amounts. Regarding a significant addition, the counsel argued that discrepancies were due to dishonored cheques and misaccounting of bills, which were not considered by the authorities below.

Issue 3: Admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT (A) without allowing opportunity to the Assessing Officer:
- The Department raised a ground of appeal questioning the admission of additional evidence by the Ld. CIT (A) in the form of a certificate from a bank without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A(3) of the IT Act. The ITAT considered this issue and found that the admission of additional evidence without following due process was a valid concern raised by the Department.

Issue 4: Deletion of addition u/s 69C in respect of purchases from parties without confirmation from the parties:
- The Department also contested the deletion of an addition under section 69C in respect of purchases from parties without appreciating that the parties did not confirm the sales to the assessee to that extent in their replies to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue on this issue as the tax effect was below the threshold specified in a CBDT Circular, making the appeal not maintainable.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai addressed cross appeals related to the assessment year 2005-06, involving issues such as unaccounted expenditure, admission of additional evidence, and deletion of additions without party confirmation. The tribunal provided detailed analysis and directions for fresh adjudication where necessary, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and principles.