2022 (3) TMI 62 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - Addition made by AO and further confirmed by the CIT(A), only because of the non-appearance of the director of the assessee-company - HELD THAT - There is no rebuttal by the Ld. DR regarding the submissions of the assessee that the required evidences and details furnished by the assessee have not been thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer before arriving at a conclusion that the transactions were not genuine. Interest of justice will be well-served if the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh and make proper enquiries and investigations duly considering the evidences and details furnished by the assessee. The director/directors of the assessee-company shall make themselves available before the Assessing Officer, if so required by the Assessing Officer, relating to any queries in relation to the aforesaid transactions. With the above directions, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Addition under sec. 68 confirmed by CIT(A)
2. Validity of assessment due to notice u/s. 145(2)
3. Confirmation of addition made under sec. 68 by CIT(A)
4. Compliance with notices u/s. 133(6) by share applicants
5. Confirmation of addition under sec. 68 due to non-compliance with summons u/s. 131
6. Assessment order passed without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard
7. Appeal for leave to add, alter, or withdraw any ground/s of appeal

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition under sec. 68 confirmed by CIT(A)
The appellant contested the addition of ?1,23,20,000 under sec. 68, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the order without properly appreciating the facts and evidences. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s reliance on previous judgments and emphasized that the facts of the case at hand differed. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) based the addition on the non-appearance of the director of the assessee-company, despite the submission of required documents. The Tribunal directed the matter to be restored to the Assessing Officer for proper examination of evidences and investigations.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment due to notice u/s. 145(2)
The appellant raised concerns regarding the validity of the assessment, stating that the notice u/s. 145(2) was not served within six months from the end of the relevant year. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the addition under sec. 68.

Issue 3: Confirmation of addition made under sec. 68 by CIT(A)
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, citing non-compliance with notices issued u/s. 131 as justification for treating the transactions as not genuine. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not thoroughly examine the evidences provided by the assessee before making the addition. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the matter to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer with proper enquiries and investigations.

Issue 4: Compliance with notices u/s. 133(6) by share applicants
The appellant argued that the notices issued to the share applicants u/s. 133(6) were duly served and complied with by filing the required details and documents. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing more on the need for proper examination of evidences by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 5: Confirmation of addition under sec. 68 due to non-compliance with summons u/s. 131
The Tribunal acknowledged the non-compliance with summons u/s. 131 but emphasized the importance of thorough examination of evidences before concluding the transactions as not genuine. The Tribunal directed the matter to be restored for re-assessment, allowing the directors of the assessee-company to appear before the Assessing Officer if necessary.

Issue 6: Assessment order passed without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard
The appellant contended that the assessment order was passed hastily without providing adequate opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal agreed that the matter required further examination and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct a de novo assessment with proper enquiries and investigations.

Issue 7: Appeal for leave to add, alter, or withdraw any ground/s of appeal
The appellant requested the flexibility to add, alter, or withdraw any ground/s of appeal before the hearing. This request was not explicitly addressed in the judgment, as the focus was on the substantive issues related to the addition under sec. 68 and the validity of the assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough re-examination of the evidences and proper investigations by the Assessing Officer.

← Previous Next →