2022 (5) TMI 189 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loans received in from of gold and jewellery and unsecured loans treated as alleged unexplained and non-genuine - Assessee submitted additional evidence - HELD THAT - As additional evidences/ documents are available on public domain however the assessing officer did not get opportunity to examine the veracity of these additional evidences/documents. Since the assessing officer has not examined these additional evidences/documents therefore principle of natural justice requires that it would be fair to remit this issue back to the file of the assessing officer for his examination. We note that these additional evidences/documents (although some of them are from public domain) were neither examined by the assessing officer nor by ld CIT(A). Therefore in the interest of justice and fair play for both the parties we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and to decide the matter in accordance to law after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against addition of unsecured loans received in form of gold and jewellery, and interest expenses claimed by the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2012-13 and challenges the addition of Rs. 2,46,00,648/- on account of unsecured loans received in the form of gold and jewellery and interest expenses claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the assessing officer's action under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The assessing officer observed that the assessee had taken loans in the form of gold and jewellery from various individuals and entities during the year under consideration. The assessing officer found discrepancies in the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the source and possession of the gold and jewellery. As a result, the loans were treated as unexplained and non-genuine under section 68 of the Act, leading to the addition of Rs. 2,46,00,648/-.

3. In the appeal, the assessee argued that the loans were taken due to financial crisis, with family members pledging their gold and jewellery. The assessee presented documents to support the claim, including the list of lenders and the circumstances necessitating the loans. Additionally, the assessee referenced the Gold Monetization Scheme, 2015 to justify the transactions.

4. The Revenue contended that the claimed gold jewellery loans appeared dubious as the valuation certificates indicated inconsistencies, such as uniform quality and weight, raising suspicions of fabricated transactions. The Revenue suggested that the matter be sent back to the assessing officer for further examination of additional evidence submitted by the assessee.

5. The Tribunal acknowledged the additional evidence presented by the assessee, noting that while some documents were in the public domain, the assessing officer had not evaluated them. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment after considering the additional evidence and providing a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice in tax assessments.