2022 (9) TMI 50 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained investment - Primary onus - assessee case was reopened u/s 148 based upon AIR information that assessee has made investment during the year under consideration in Mutual Funds - HELD THAT -Primary onus is on the assessee to bring cogent evidences to substantiate its contentions whether the amount was invested during the year out of redemption of old Mutual funds or as to exemption of dividend/interest income received by the assessee. The primary onus is on the assessee to bring on record cogent evidences , so that correct income chargeable to income-tax within the provisions of the 1961 Act, is brought to income-tax. It is equally true that if the assessee has made investments in preceding years out of his tax paid known sources, merely redemption of the said old investments cannot be brought to tax , except income earned on it or is specifically provided to be chargeable to tax by the statute i.e. 1961 Act , but the onus is squarely on the assessee to substantiate its taxability or otherwise, by bringing on record cogent material. As also observed that the assessee has deposited cash in its ICICI Bank account on various occasions, and onus is very heavy on assessee to explain these cash deposits. It is for the assessee to substantiate its state of affairs and income which is chargeable to tax. If the assessee fails to discharge its primary onus, then Revenue has all the right to bring to tax unexplained credits, money as well investments. It is equally true that the correct income which is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the 1961 Act, is to be brought to tax for the correct assessment year in the hands of correct assessee. The authorities also must assist assessee in all reasonable ways, so that correct income chargeable to tax under the provision of the 1961 Act is brought to tax for correct assessment year in the hands of correct assessee. Reference is drawn to circular number 14 of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 issued by CBDT. Thus, after considering the entire material on record, I restore the matter back to the file of AO for denovo assessment on merit, in accordance with law - we clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues and all contentions are kept open. Needless to say that the AO will give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside remand proceedings. The evidences/explanation submitted by assessee in denovo assessment proceedings shall be admitted by AO and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. If the assessee do not co-operate in set aside denovo assessment proceedings, the AO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- as unexplained investment in mutual funds.
2. Non-disclosure of ICICI Bank account.
3. Enhancement of income by the CIT(A).
4. Non-disclosure of Citi Bank account closure proceeds.
5. Non-disclosure of interest income and matured mutual funds.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- as Unexplained Investment in Mutual Funds:
The assessee made an investment of Rs. 4,00,000/- in mutual funds during the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that this investment was not disclosed in the return of income or capital account. The assessee claimed to have sufficient savings and income from previous years to justify the investment. However, the AO found no evidence to support this claim and treated the investment as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting discrepancies in the assessee's capital account and lack of evidence for the claimed savings.

2. Non-disclosure of ICICI Bank Account:
The assessee did not initially disclose the ICICI Bank account during the assessment proceedings. It was later submitted before the CIT(A) along with an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The AO and CIT(A) noted that the assessee failed to produce complete details and bank statements during the assessment, leading to the addition of unexplained investments and income.

3. Enhancement of Income by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) not only confirmed the AO's addition but also enhanced the income by identifying additional undisclosed investments and interest income. The CIT(A) added Rs. 1,00,000/- invested in HDFC Premium Multi Cap Fund, Rs. 10,310/- in ICICI Pru Fund, Rs. 46,800/- in PNB FPO, and Rs. 47,250/- in Jet FPO. Additionally, Rs. 15,000/- was added as undisclosed interest and mutual fund income. The CIT(A) also treated Rs. 1,25,877/- credited in the ICICI Bank account as unexplained money, as it was claimed to be the closure proceeds of a Citi Bank account, which was not substantiated with evidence.

4. Non-disclosure of Citi Bank Account Closure Proceeds:
The assessee claimed that Rs. 1,25,877/- credited in the ICICI Bank account was from the closure of a Citi Bank account. However, no evidence was provided to support this claim, and the Citi Bank statement was not produced. The CIT(A) treated this amount as unexplained money due to the lack of disclosure and supporting documents.

5. Non-disclosure of Interest Income and Matured Mutual Funds:
The CIT(A) observed that the assessee received Rs. 6.20 lacs as maturity amounts from various mutual funds, which were not disclosed in the return of income. The assessee also failed to disclose interest income received on sweep FDRs made through the bank account. The CIT(A) added Rs. 15,000/- to the income for undisclosed interest and mutual fund income.

Tribunal's Decision:
The tribunal considered the arguments and material on record. The assessee claimed that old investments were redeemed and reinvested, and requested an opportunity to provide complete details. The tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a denovo assessment, emphasizing the primary onus on the assessee to substantiate the sources of investments and income. The AO was directed to give proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee and admit the evidences/explanations during the denovo assessment proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the assessment and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to provide complete details and evidence to substantiate the investments and income. The AO was instructed to conduct the assessment in accordance with the law, ensuring that the correct income chargeable to tax is brought to tax.

← Previous Next →