2014 (4) TMI 552 - AT - Income Tax

Non-consideration of Additional evidences Held that - When the appeal came for hearing before the CIT(A) on 09/01/2014 and the order was passed by the CIT(A) on 17/01/2014 - the assessee has filed certain evidences before the CIT(A) on 5/02/2014 and the CIT(A) did not get an occasion to consider the same as he has passed the order prior to that on 17/01/2014 - the evidences filed before the CIT(A) are very important in deciding the appeal - Since the assessee has not filed these evidences before the AO, the AO had no occasion to consider the same thus, the matter is required to be remitted back to the AO to consider the evidences filed by the assessee, which are on record Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11
- Addition of unapproved purchases, interest on FDs, unexplained credits
- CIT(A) not considering additional evidences filed by the appellant
- Upholding additions under section 68 for trade credit outstanding
- Non-adjudication on additional ground raised by the appellant
- Failure to establish identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions
- Request for remittance of the issue back to the AO for further substantiation

Analysis:
The appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2010-11, where the AO had made various additions to the total income of the assessee, including unapproved purchases, interest on FDs, and unexplained credits. The CIT(A) upheld these additions under section 68 of the IT Act, relating to trade credit outstanding in the names of specific individuals and entities. The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s decision, including failure to consider additional evidences submitted, non-adjudication on an additional ground, and lack of opportunity to establish the genuineness of transactions.

The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO as the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the unexplained credits. Despite the appellant filing additional grounds and evidences, the CIT(A) did not consider them, citing that they were submitted after the order was passed. The appellant argued that crucial evidences were not properly appreciated and requested another opportunity to substantiate the claims before the AO with the evidences. The AR contended that the assessment was completed hastily without providing reasonable hearing opportunities to the assessee.

During the appeal hearing, the AR requested the issue to be remitted back to the AO for further substantiation, which the DR did not oppose. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the evidences filed before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the AO to review the evidences on record and decide the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes without commenting on the merits of the grounds raised.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration highlighted the significance of providing a fair opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims with proper evidences. The case underscored the importance of due process and the right to be heard in tax assessment proceedings, ensuring justice and fairness in determining tax liabilities.