2014 (1) TMI 1291 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act Held that - The assessee was deriving income from salary - No explanation whatsoever was given to the Assessing Officer, despite several notices - The assessee has only produced some of the vouchers before the Assessing Officer in remand proceedings - She has not furnished all the relevant details before the Assessing Officer -. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given an observation that assessee has filed the necessary details and the Assessing Officer has not examine the same - there is totally contradictory finding by the Assessing Officer in the Assessing Officer s remand report and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in his appellate order - assessee has not submitted the details of her business to the Assessing Officer in the return of income the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Revenue. Cross objection to be entertained Held that - The cross objections raised by the assessee needs to be reconsidered by the AO Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revenue's appeal against deletion of addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- under unexplained cash credit u/s. 68.
2. Assessee's Cross Objection against ad-hoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- without proper justification.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and treated it as unexplained income. The Assessee argued that the amount was from the sale proceeds of a food grain business, supported by documentary evidence. The Ld. Commissioner found the Assessing Officer failed to examine the case properly, accepted the Assessee's submissions, and directed tax calculation as per section 44AF of the Act. However, an additional Rs. 3,00,000/- was added for lack of proper accounting records.

2. The Assessee's Cross Objection challenged the ad-hoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- without proper justification. The Ld. Commissioner acknowledged the Assessee's business details and genuine reasons for not disclosing transactions earlier. The Assessing Officer's failure to inquire into the loan and capital account aspects was noted. Despite incomplete records, the Ld. Commissioner directed tax calculation under section 44AF and added Rs. 3,00,000/- for concealment of income. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment considering the Assessee's submissions.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's Cross Objection for statistical purposes. The case was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, considering all relevant details and providing the Assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper examination of facts and adherence to legal provisions in income tax assessments.