2017 (8) TMI 559 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained bank credits -admission of additional evidence - Held that - Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed additional evidences, which has been rejected by him, therefore, for the interest of justice and equity, I admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. From perusal of the records, it also transpires that the Assessing Officer gave opportunity to the assessee. However, there is no evidence on record to justify or confirm the fact that assessee was provided adequate and effective hearing with regard to the direction sought and provided. The facts of the case shows that the assessee has not been provided an effective opportunity of being heard with regard to directions issued by the Assessing Officer, which is a mandatory requirement of law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Issues:
1. Addition of unexplained bank credits of ?34,79,800 and ?8,79,367 by the Assessing Officer.
2. Rejection of additional evidence submitted by the assessee by the ld. CIT(A).
3. Appeal filed before the Tribunal regarding ex parte decision and lack of effective opportunity of being heard.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Bank Credits
The Assessing Officer made additions of ?34,79,800 and ?8,79,367 on account of unexplained cash deposits and unexplained bank credits, respectively, due to non-appearance of the assessee resulting in an ex parte assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions despite the submission of additional evidence by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) justified the additions by highlighting the lack of valid notices served on the assessee and the failure to explain the transactions adequately. The explanation provided by the appellant regarding the cash deposits from a petrol pump owner and related documents were deemed as an afterthought. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate and effective hearing to the assessee, leading to a lack of justification for the additions. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Issue 2: Rejection of Additional Evidence
The ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, citing lack of valid notices served and the timing of the submissions. However, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence for the interest of justice and equity, emphasizing the mandatory requirement of providing adequate and effective hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidence and decide de novo after ensuring proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

Issue 3: Appeal Before the Tribunal
The assessee appealed before the Tribunal, arguing that the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged the lack of effective hearing provided to the assessee and decided to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cooperation from the assessee in the assessment process and warned that failure to cooperate would result in no further opportunities being granted. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural fairness and the importance of providing adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard in tax assessment proceedings. The case highlights the significance of due process and cooperation in resolving tax disputes effectively.

← Previous Next →