2021 (12) TMI 645 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of initiation of proceeding u/s 153C - Additions on account of unexplained investment in land, unexplained cash credits and unexplained investment on account of loans and advances - Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - Once the assessee sought to file the additional evidence then the proper procedure is to first admit the additional evidences and then seek remand report from the AO on the correctness of the additional evidence. This exercise is necessary to verify the correctness of the additional evidence first time filed by the assessee at appellate stage as well as granting the opportunity to the AO to consider such evidences. CIT(A) has proceeded on its own without giving the opportunity to the AO to verify and examine the additional evidence and further to respond and make comments on merits of the issue - when the additional evidence was not subjected to examination and verification by the AO and the order of the CIT(A) is also non-speaking order so far as deletion of additions are concerned, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned order and remand the issue to the record of CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh by passing a speaking order after getting the additional evidences to be verified from the AO - assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing fresh order. Though the assessee has supported the order of CIT(A) under Rule 27 of IT rules on the issue of validity of initiation of proceeding under section 153C of the Act which has been decided by CIT(A) against the assessee however, as we have remanded the matter to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication including the maintainability of the belated appeal therefore, this issue is kept open to be raised as per the outcome of the fresh order of CIT(A) - Appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A).
2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A).
3. Deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in land, unexplained cash credits, and unexplained investment on account of loans and advances.
4. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
5. Penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal Before CIT(A):
The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 28.02.2019 against the assessment order dated 26.10.2016, resulting in a delay of more than two years. The CIT(A) condoned the delay, stating that the appellant had a sufficient cause for not presenting its appeal within the stipulated time. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the reasons for the delay or analyze the facts leading to the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with a speaking order on the condonation of delay.

2. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):
The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify and examine the evidence. The Tribunal noted that the proper procedure was not followed, as the Assessing Officer's objections to the admission of additional evidence were not adequately addressed. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, ensuring that the additional evidence is verified by the Assessing Officer and a speaking order is passed.

3. Deletion of Additions Made by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer made various additions based on the material found during a search and seizure operation, which included unexplained investment in land, unexplained cash credits, and unexplained investment on account of loans and advances. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that the entries were recorded in the books of accounts and supported by additional evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the additional evidence was not verified by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue for fresh adjudication after verification of the additional evidence by the Assessing Officer.

4. Validity of Initiation of Proceedings Under Section 153C:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 153C was decided against the assessee by the CIT(A). However, since the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, this issue was kept open to be raised again based on the outcome of the fresh order.

5. Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(c):
The penalty order under section 271(1)(c) was consequential to the outcome of the quantum appeal. Since the quantum appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication, the Tribunal also set aside the penalty order to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after the outcome of the quantum appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the Revenue for statistical purposes, remanding the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with specific directions to follow the proper procedure for admitting and verifying additional evidence and to pass a speaking order. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the additional evidence by the Assessing Officer and the opportunity for the assessee to be heard before passing a fresh order.

← Previous Next →