2022 (11) TMI 1525 - HC - Income Tax

Addition made in respect of the 41 parties - Veracity of the loan - as argued addition was made by the AO without providing an opportunity of cross examination of the 7 parties who had denied any balance in their accounts as on 31.03.2012 - HELD THAT - In the remand report called for by the CIT(A), AO has clearly reported that the assessee had claimed that the amount was not received in the relevant assessment year, but no evidence was produced by the assessee to substantiate the contention that the loans were received in the earlier financial years. Thus, the controversy hinges around the receipt of money in the relevant financial year namely 2011-12. Unless relevant material is made available before the AO to substantiate assessee's contention that the alleged loans were received prior to 01.04.2011 and there was a credit balance in the books of accounts as on 01.04.2011, the findings of fact recorded by all three authorities below cannot be sustained. In our view, it is just and appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer granting liberty to the assessee to furnish the material in support of his contention. Appeal is allowed. Matter is remitted to the of Assessing Officer reserving liberty to the assessee to produce any material to show that alleged amount was received prior to 01.04.2011. It is clarified that if the loan amount is received in the financial year between 01.04.2012 and 01.03.2013, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to satisfy himself with regard to the veracity of the loan.

Summary

Issues:
1. Justification of addition made without providing cross-examination opportunity.
2. Validity of addition based on suspicion and conjectures.
3. Justification of upholding addition of closing balances from previous years.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal raised concerns regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer without providing an opportunity for cross-examination to certain parties denying any balance in their accounts. The Tribunal was questioned for upholding this addition without considering the principles of natural justice. The argument was centered on noncompliance with the opportunity for cross-examination, a fundamental aspect of fair procedure. The validity of the addition was challenged based on the lack of this procedural safeguard, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in such matters.

Issue 2:
Another point of contention was the validity of the addition of certain creditors and a specific individual named Sri Prakash, which was alleged to be based purely on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures. The appellant argued that such an addition, lacking concrete evidence and relying solely on suspicion, cannot be considered legally sustainable. The Tribunal's decision to uphold these additions was questioned for being perceived as perverse in the eyes of the law. The issue highlighted the necessity of substantiating additions with concrete evidence rather than mere suspicion or conjectures.

Issue 3:
The third issue revolved around the justification of upholding the addition of closing balances as of March 31, 2012, even though these balances related to receipts from previous years and not the relevant assessment year of 2012-13. The argument raised concerns about the relevance and legality of including balances from prior periods in the assessment for the current year. The decision to uphold such additions was challenged on the grounds of misalignment with the applicable financial periods and the need for accurate assessment based on the relevant year's transactions. The issue emphasized the importance of aligning additions with the correct assessment period to ensure accuracy and fairness in tax assessments.

In the final judgment, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The court granted the appellant the liberty to provide material supporting the contention that the alleged amount was received before April 1, 2011. The court clarified that if the loan amount was received between April 1, 2012, and March 1, 2013, the Assessing Officer should verify the veracity of the loan. As the matter was remanded, the court did not provide answers to the questions of law and did not impose any costs.