9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 273 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash payment without any evidence - assessee could not explain satisfactorily that the amount was not received by him - HELD THAT - Claim of the assessee was that the said amount was never received by him as there was no provision at all in the contract that any amount would be received in cash, rather the amount was to be received through cheque. The assessee also filed an affidavit dt. 24/06/2021 first time before this Bench of Tribunal with an application to admit the same as an additional evidence - contents of the said affidavit go to the root of the matter and the assessee had averted in the said affidavit that the signature on the photocopy of the receipt used against him for making addition were not his, the person who had made the complaint had not been allowed to be cross examined and that the signature on the receipt needs to be got verified by hand writing expert. We admit the additional evidence in the form of the affidavit of the assessee but since the said affidavit was not before the A.O. or the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without considering the facts. 2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Confirmation of the addition of ?17,00,000/- alleged to have been received in cash without evidence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Dismissal of the Appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals): The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly dismissed the appeal without thoroughly examining the facts of the case. The main grievance was the confirmation of the addition of ?17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). 2. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The appellant argued that the reasons recorded by the A.O. for issuing the notice under Section 148 were incorrect. The A.O. had reopened the assessment based on information from ADIT (Inv.), Patiala, indicating that the assessee received cash payments of ?17,00,000/- from M/s. Wembley Coop. H/B Society. The A.O. asked the assessee to account for this amount, but the assessee denied receiving such cash payments and claimed the receipts were forged. 3. Confirmation of the Addition of ?17,00,000/- Alleged to Have Been Received in Cash Without Evidence: The A.O. made the addition of ?17,00,000/- to the income of the assessee, citing non-cooperation and the tallying of signatures on the alleged receipts with those on other documents. The assessee contended that the addition was based on photocopies of receipts without original evidence and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the addition, stating that photocopies could be sufficient evidence if the assessee was confronted with this information. The assessee submitted an affidavit denying the receipt of cash and requested verification of the signatures by a handwriting expert. The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the form of the affidavit and remanded the issue back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for due and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Separate Judgments: The Tribunal's findings for ITA No. 663/Chd/2018 (A.Y. 2008-09) were applied similarly to ITA No. 664/Chd/2018 (A.Y. 2009-10). For ITA No. 673 & 674/Chd/2018, where the assessee was the payer, the Tribunal also remanded the matters back to the A.O. due to the direct nexus with the other appeals. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed all appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the issues back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, ensuring due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/06/2021.)
|
