2002 (2) TMI 311 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of unproved cash credits.
2. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the assessee to prove cash credits.
3. Legality of CIT(A)'s directions for reassessment and examination of new creditors.

Summary:

1. Addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of unproved cash credits:
The appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84 challenges the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs. 50,000 on account of unproved cash credits. Initially, the assessment included an addition of Rs. 5,55,465, which was later set aside by the CIT(A) except for a trading addition of Rs. 87,566. Upon reassessment, the income was taken at Rs. 4,52,420, including repeated additions. The assessee's appeal led to another set-aside by CIT(A) for reassessment, which resulted in the disputed addition of Rs. 50,000.

2. Adequacy of opportunity provided to the assessee to prove cash credits:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to prove the cash credits. The books of account were impounded, and the list of creditors was not provided during the second assessment. The CIT(A) remanded the matter twice, but the assessee faced adverse circumstances, including a significant time gap of over 10 years, making it difficult to prove the credits. The Tribunal found that the opportunity afforded was neither adequate nor fair.

3. Legality of CIT(A)'s directions for reassessment and examination of new creditors:
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s directions to re-examine the genuineness of new creditors were contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443, which restricts the power of enhancement to sources of income considered by the Income-tax Officer. Despite this, the Tribunal focused on the practical difficulties faced by the assessee due to the prolonged reassessment process and the lack of timely and fair opportunity.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that no addition was required u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act for the unproved cash credits. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule in section 68 is not absolute and that the Assessing Officer has discretion not to make an addition if the circumstances justify it. The Tribunal found that the assessee had been sufficiently taxed and that the squared-up credits would have been proved if a fair and timely opportunity had been granted. The Tribunal was guided by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570, which held that the Assessing Officer is not obliged to treat unexplained investments as income. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 50,000 was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.