2020 (6) TMI 130 - AT - Income Tax

Additions based upon incremental difference between the balance sheet of earlier year and the current year - CIT(A) has not examined these issues in detail, and the required reconciliation is not available from the order of the Hon ble Settlement Commission - HELD THAT - Since the nature and source of the impugned transactions were not properly placed and explained before the A.O, we deem it fit to remit the issues back to the file of A.O for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place relevant materials in support of his contentions before the A.O. and comply with the requirements of the A.O. in accordance with law. A.O. is also free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit. On due examination and after affording effective opportunity to the assessee, the A.O. shall decide the matter on merits - Appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses against professional receipts.
2. Addition of undisclosed investments in the assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee, an individual, had admitted a certain amount as income out of the professional receipts, and the Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed 50% of the expenses claimed due to lack of supporting evidence. Additionally, the A.O. added a substantial amount as undisclosed income as the source for investments was not explained. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The grounds of appeal by the Revenue included the deletion of the disallowance of expenses and the addition of undisclosed investments by the CIT(A). The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenses and the addition of undisclosed investments without proper basis or supporting evidence. The Revenue argued that the A.O. had issued a specific questionnaire to the assessee, and the disallowance was made as the assessee failed to provide the required information. The CIT(A) allowed relief based on the settlement commission's order related to the assessee's father, but the Revenue claimed that proper reconciliation was not provided. The Revenue also argued that the CIT(A) did not follow the procedures under Rule 46A of IT Rules 1962.

3. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the CIT(A) did not provide the A.O. with an opportunity to examine the fresh details submitted by the assessee, as mandated by Rule 46A. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal without proper supporting evidence. On the other hand, the assessee's representative supported the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found that the nature and source of the transactions were not adequately explained to the A.O., leading to a lack of proper examination. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the A.O. for a fresh examination, instructing the assessee to provide relevant materials and comply with the A.O.'s requirements. The A.O. was directed to conduct further inquiry as necessary before deciding the matter on merits.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the issues related to the disallowance of expenses and the addition of undisclosed investments. The decision was made to remit the issues back to the A.O. for proper examination based on relevant materials and compliance with legal requirements.

← Previous Next →