9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 780 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - assessee had failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the creditworthiness of the investors - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - CIT (Appeals) without going into the details of the Assessing Officer's remand report has simply deleted the entire addition despite there is a difference which appears prima facie proper in respect of approximately ₹ 18 crores. Thus, the CIT (Appeals) has not at all properly verified the details given by the assessee during the appellant proceedings and the Ld. AR also could not point out how the difference has crept into. Merely, submitting the addresses, income tax particulars of debenture holders cannot be termed as sufficient evidence. In fact, the receipt of payment and repayment made through banking channels also reveals that the entire addition of ₹ 156.10 was not properly taken into account by the CIT(A) relating to the difference of ₹ 18 crores. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for further investigation/verification of all the evidences produced by the assessee in respect of 110 parties and accordingly pass the appropriate order by following due process of law.
Issues:
1. Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act - Creditworthiness of investors. 2. Deletion of addition by CIT (Appeals) without proper verification. 3. Necessity of remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further investigation. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved the question of whether the CIT (Appeals) was justified in deleting an addition of ?1,56,10,00,000 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, even when the initial onus to prove the creditworthiness of investors was not discharged by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals). The Revenue contended that the documents submitted by the assessee only established the identity of some investors and did not prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions as required by law. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the entire addition without properly verifying the details provided by the assessee, leading to a discrepancy of approximately ?18 crores. The Tribunal observed that the matter required further investigation and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of the evidence presented by the assessee. The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 2. The dispute also revolved around the deletion of the addition by the CIT (Appeals) without conducting a detailed analysis of the Assessing Officer's remand report. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) had not adequately verified the details provided by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, resulting in a significant discrepancy in the amount under consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper verification and investigation in such cases and decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a more thorough examination. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of following due process of law and ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld throughout the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that a remand back to the Assessing Officer was necessary for further investigation and verification of all the evidence presented by the assessee regarding the 110 parties involved. The Tribunal stressed the importance of a comprehensive examination of the evidentiary material to arrive at a just and accurate decision. By partially allowing the appeal of the Revenue for statistical purposes, the Tribunal aimed to ensure that the matter is thoroughly reviewed and resolved in accordance with the legal requirements and principles of natural justice. In summary, the judgment addressed the issues related to the addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the deletion of the addition by the CIT (Appeals) without proper verification, and the necessity of remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further investigation to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.
|
