9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 44 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed investments u/s 69B - cash payment against the purchase of the flat which was not recorded in the regular books of accounts - Addition based on documents found in the course of search by DGCEI viz a viz the directors of CPIPL have admitted in their respective statements to have received payment in cash from the assessee - whether the addition can be sustained on the basis of search materials and the statements without providing the opportunity to the assessee for his confrontation/rebuttal? - HELD THAT - The answer is in negative. The principles of natural justice requires that the assessee should be given the opportunity of placing his points of contentions with respect to search materials and the statements based on which additions were made. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment in the case Heirs and Legal Representative of Late Laxmibhai S. Patel 2008 (7) TMI 544 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Also see H.R. MEHTA VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 2016 (7) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT We hold that no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee. As we have decided the issue in favor of the assessee on the preliminary ground as discussed, we are not inclined to decide the issue on merit. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Addition of ?1,11,111 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2010-2011. 3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D for Assessment Year 2013-14. 4. Addition of ?2,61,000 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appellant challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) relied merely on search operations and digital evidence from a third party without providing substantive evidence or confronting the appellant with the statements of the third party. The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the appellant was not provided with the statements or given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned third parties. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that any addition based on such unverified evidence is liable to be deleted. 2. Addition of ?1,11,111 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2010-2011: The AO added ?1,11,111 to the appellant's income under Section 69B, based on digital evidence found during a search operation at the premises of Corner Point Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (CPIPL). The appellant argued that no cash payment was made, and the AO failed to provide any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not provided with the statements of CPIPL's directors or the documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. 3. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D for Assessment Year 2013-14: The AO made a disallowance of ?62,368 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the appellant incurred expenses for maintaining investments. The appellant contended that the investments were made from surplus funds and no expenditure was incurred. The Tribunal did not provide a separate detailed analysis for this issue, but it was implied that the principles applied in the previous issues would mutatis mutandis apply, leading to the disallowance being overturned. 4. Addition of ?2,61,000 under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14: Similar to the issue for Assessment Year 2010-2011, the AO added ?2,61,000 under Section 69B based on digital evidence from CPIPL. The appellant argued that no cash payment was made, and the AO did not provide any corroborative evidence. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in the previous issue, noting the violation of natural justice and directing the AO to delete the addition. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing the AO to delete the additions made under Section 69B for both assessment years and overturning the disallowance under Section 14A for Assessment Year 2013-14. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly the need to provide the appellant with the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the evidence and statements used against them.
|
