2021 (2) TMI 786 - AT - Income Tax

Non admission of additional evidence of evidence by CIT-A - Unexplained credit u/s. 68 - unsecured loans - As argued there was no fresh loans raised by the appellant in the instant year and therefore the sum outstanding at the close of the year on account of purchases made by the appellant could neither in law and nor on fact be regarded as unexplained credit u/s. 68 - AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46 A read with Section 250(4) - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) without assigning any particular reasons has rejected the additional evidence which goes to the root of the matter. We therefore, direct the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and to decide the issue afresh after taking cognizance of the evidences filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Issues:
1. Addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A and Section 250(4) of the Act.
3. Disallowance under section 43B for 'other current liabilities'.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The appellant contested the addition of ?1,09,46,375 as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. The appellant argued that the outstanding amount from purchases made should not be treated as unexplained credit, especially when no fresh loans were raised during the year. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that once the purchases were accepted as genuine, the corresponding credit could not be added as unexplained. The appellant also pointed out that a portion of the amount represented opening balances, which should not be taxed under section 68. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and directed a fresh assessment considering the evidences submitted.

Issue 2: Rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A and Section 250(4) of the Act
The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to reject additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and Section 250(4) of the Act. The tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not provided specific reasons for rejecting the evidence, which was crucial to the case. Consequently, the tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and reconsider the matter, ensuring the appellant's right to a fair hearing in accordance with principles of natural justice.

Issue 3: Disallowance under section 43B for 'other current liabilities'
The appellant contested the disallowance of ?7,38,112 under 'other current liabilities' invoking section 43B of the Act. The appellant argued that the disallowance was based on incorrect facts, as all payments were made after the filing date of the return. The tribunal found the reasoning for disallowance to be legally flawed and directed a reassessment of this amount.

Issue 4: Compliance with principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings
The appellant raised concerns regarding the assessment proceedings, claiming that both authorities had not granted sufficient opportunity for a proper defense. The tribunal acknowledged the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and directed the authorities to ensure a fair and adequate opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing a fresh assessment considering the additional evidence and ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

← Previous Next →