2022 (3) TMI 1182 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Addition on account of peak amount of investment - HELD THAT - No doubt that the assessee remained absent during the assessment proceedings and not fully cooperated and made compliance to various notices. Keeping in view the complexity of various entries of commodities transaction, which has material bearing on the addition made by the AO and the facts that before ld CIT(A) the assessee specifically claimed that in all transaction transacted through Anand Rath Commodities Ltd, Globe Commodities Ltd and Religare Commodities ltd, the assessee made a meagre investment and that there was no such investment as added by AO, all such facts are not verified by lower authorities. Therefore, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the issue is restored back to the file of AO. The assessee is directed to explain all the transactions qua the investments through Anand Rathi Commodities Ltd, Globe Commodities, and through Religare Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The assessee is further directed to comply all the notices of AO and to provide all necessary evidence and information without further delay and not to seek the adjournment without any valid reasons. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of peak amount of investment for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
2. Opportunity to explain transactions and evidence provided to the assessee.
3. Compliance with notices and principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of peak amount of investment
The case involved two appeals by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ?64,20,775/- as the peak amount of investment based on data from various stock exchanges. The assessee contended that the peak investment amounts were misconceived, and the AO did not provide the necessary material for quantification of income. The assessee argued that the actual investments were significantly lower than the amounts added. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide the material gathered to the assessee, affecting the assessee's ability to make an effective representation. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the AO for detailed examination of the transactions and investments through different entities.

Issue 2: Opportunity to explain transactions
The assessee requested the material gathered by the AO, which was provided for the first time during the Tribunal proceedings. The assessee argued that the principles of natural justice require that evidence be confronted to the assessee before being used against them. The Tribunal acknowledged the complexity of the transactions and directed the assessee to explain all transactions related to investments through specific entities. The assessee was instructed to comply with all notices and provide necessary evidence without delay.

Issue 3: Compliance with notices and principles of natural justice
The Tribunal observed that while the assessee did not fully cooperate during the assessment proceedings, the complexity of the transactions warranted a detailed examination. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and directed the assessee to explain all transactions related to the investments. The AO was instructed to verify the facts presented by the assessee and ensure compliance with all necessary procedures and notices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the transactions and investments in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

This analysis provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the key arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's decision regarding each issue.