2021 (9) TMI 1199 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash deposits - as contended AO had failed to discharge burden of proof with regard to alleged cash transactions reflected in the bank accounts of the assessee - DR submitted that the assessee has not carried any business activity for the past 10 years, but, the cash has been deposited into the assessee's bank account - HELD THAT - As per the findings of the AO, the assessee has not carried out any business activity and has deposited cash in his bank account. DR also contended that the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee without addressing the issues raised by the AO in his order. Therefore, considering the totality of the case of the case, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the appeal taking into consideration the observations of the CIT(A) and contentions of the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before him in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee - Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10 under Income Tax Act, 1961
- Alleged unaccounted cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee
- Failure to provide opportunity for rebuttal and cross-examination by the AO
- CIT(A) allowing the appeal of the assessee based on lack of evidence

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2009-10 under the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147. The grounds of appeal included contentions regarding the erroneous nature of the CIT(A)'s order both factually and legally.

2. The assessee, a private limited company trading in steel, had ceased business activities for ten years and did not file returns for AY 2009-10. The AO initiated proceedings u/s. 148, leading to an assessment of cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee.

3. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), arguing that the AO failed to provide evidence for alleged cash transactions in the bank accounts. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 1,74,20,000.

4. The revenue appealed before the ITAT, contending that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without sufficient evidence of the transactions. The AR supported the CIT(A)'s decision, highlighting the lack of disclosed evidence by the AO.

5. The ITAT analyzed the case and observed that the AO did not follow legal obligations in providing details of information to the assessee for rebuttal. The issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision, directing the assessee to substantiate claims with documentary evidence.

6. Ultimately, the appeal of the revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment process with proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and rebut allegations.