2025 (3) TMI 1210 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts - HELD THAT - AO disallowed the claim without examining the submitted documents making the disallowance arbitrary and baseless. The requirement for a remand report did not arise as the CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal based on documents already on record during the assessment stage. AO s procedural lapse in passing the assessment order just nine days after issuing the show-cause notice despite having more time deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity to present her case violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue has failed to bring forth any substantial grounds to contradict the detailed findings of the CIT(A) or demonstrate how the CIT(A) s reliance on the statutory audit and evidence was incorrect. Accordingly we find that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by the AO. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,96,27,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,38,950/- on account of disallowance of deduction of cost of improvement of the capital asset sold while computing the short-term capital gains (STCG).
Whether the CIT(A) was required to call for a remand report from the AO when adjudicating the appeal.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Unexplained Cash Deposits under Section 68

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act allows the AO to add unexplained cash credits to the total income of the assessee if the source of the cash deposits is not satisfactorily explained.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly evaluated the evidence provided by the assessee, which included bank statements, cash book, VAT returns, and sales records. The CIT(A) determined that the AO's calculation of cash deposits was erroneous and included fictitious amounts.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) noted that the actual cash deposits during the demonetization period amounted to Rs. 1,11,88,500/-, not Rs. 1,96,27,000/- as alleged by the AO. The deposits were supported by bank statements and were consistent with the cash sales recorded in the cash book.
Application of Law to Facts: The CIT(A) concluded that the cash deposits were part of the regular business turnover and were adequately explained by the assessee's records.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report, as the evidence was already on record during the assessment proceedings.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition under Section 68, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

Disallowance of Cost of Improvement

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The cost of improvement is deductible when computing capital gains, provided it is substantiated by evidence.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided valid invoices and payment receipts to support the claimed cost of improvement.
Key Evidence and Findings: The CIT(A) verified the invoices and receipts related to civil work, flooring, and fixtures, and found them genuine.
Application of Law to Facts: The CIT(A) held that the AO's disallowance was arbitrary, as the AO did not refute the authenticity of the submitted documents.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO's failure to consider the evidence was a procedural lapse.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the cost of improvement deduction, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.

Requirement for Remand Report

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: A remand report is generally required when new evidence is presented at the appellate stage.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the evidence considered by the CIT(A) was already part of the assessment record, thus negating the need for a remand report.
Conclusions: The Tribunal found no procedural error in the CIT(A)'s decision not to call for a remand report.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that "the requirement for a remand report arises only when fresh evidence is produced before the appellate authority for the first time."
Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reaffirmed that an appellate authority is not obligated to call for a remand report when adjudicating based on evidence already part of the assessment record.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68 and allowance of the cost of improvement deduction.

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had appropriately exercised its appellate jurisdiction by thoroughly examining the evidence and correctly applying the law, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

← Previous Next →