2020 (7) TMI 464 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A - addition of processing charges bill alleged to be paid outside the books of accounts - HELD THAT - On receipt of reply alongwith 34 documents from M/s. Utkal Export, neither the AO or the CIT(A) show caused the assessee by way of written notice or note sheet entry and proceeded to make addition u/s.69A by treating the impugned amount of three bills and processing charges paid to the assessee in cash. This act of the revenue authorities is clearly contrary to the principles of natural justice as on receipt of reply from M/s. Utkal Export before making addition, the assessee should have been show caused informing him regarding reply received from M/s. Utkal Export and asking the assessee to reconcile the same. If the assessee fails to explain and reconcile the differential amount, the revenue authorities were well empowered to make addition in the hands of the assessee u/s.69A - no hesitation to hold that the addition has been made in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the ld CIT(A) was not justified and correct in upholding the same. Assessee should have been allowed to reconcile and explain the differential amount of all the bills and processing charges paid to the assessee in cash as per reply of M/s. Utkal Exports furnished before the AO. Issue related to additions made by the AO on both the issues required reverification by the AO after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee, thus both the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for limited purposes with the direction that the AO shall re-examine the bills and reply of M/s. Utkal Exports keeping in view stand and explanation of the assessee and redecide the issue after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Addition of processing charges bill and cash payment as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Violation of principles of natural justice in making additions without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee raised grounds challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Bhubaneswar under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the assessment order was unjust, improper, and bad in law.

2. The assessee company was engaged in processing shrimps for export to different countries. The dispute arose regarding processing charges paid to M/s Utkal Exports. The bills raised by M/s Utkal Exports amounted to a total of ?57,91,795, with tax deducted at the source. However, the assessee identified discrepancies in the bills, leading to a payment of ?19,76,144 in the next financial year.

3. The assessing officer added a cash payment of ?5,71,812 to M/s Utkal Exports as unexplained income, alleging that no bill was raised against this payment. The assessing officer did not accept the explanation provided by the assessee, leading to the addition of this amount to the total income.

4. The additional ground raised by the appellant challenged the addition of processing charges bills and cash payments as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the assessing officer erred in making these additions without providing an opportunity to explain the discrepancies or cross-examine M/s Utkal Exports.

5. The tribunal admitted the additional ground for consideration and adjudication, citing the principles of natural justice. The assessing officer's reliance on M/s Utkal Exports' reply without allowing the assessee to explain the discrepancies was deemed a violation of natural justice.

6. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal observed that the assessing officer did not follow due process in making the additions. The tribunal concluded that the additions were made in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the issues related to the additions were restored to the file of the assessing officer for re-examination after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

7. In the final decision, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in tax assessments.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues raised in the appeal and the tribunal's decision to restore the matters to the assessing officer for re-examination, emphasizing the importance of providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to address discrepancies before making additions to the total income.