2014 (7) TMI 1054 - AT - Income Tax

Rejection of books of accounts - Principles of natural justice Held that - The matter should go back to the file of the AO to pass a fresh order, for rejecting the books of account, the AO has not given any valid reasons as no specific defect has been pointed out in. the books of account, the AO should go through the books for determining the income on the basis of books accounts AO has to bring on record specific evidence or defect to prove falsity of books of account as no falsity has been proved in the assessment order passed by the AO revenue has to provide all the details and material on which basis the addition have been made earlier Following the decision in Hitesh S. Mehta Versus DCIT CC 23, Mumbai 2014 (7) TMI 836 - ITAT MUMBAI - thus, the AO is directed to provide the copies of all information on which basis, the AO wanted to made additions in the hands of the assessee and the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned order dated 29th February 2012 for assessment year 1992-93 under Income Tax Act, 1961. Grounds include compliance with principles of natural justice, determination of income based on final books of account, correct quantity of purchase and sale of shares, working of unexplained investments, granting partial credit for purchases, determination of unaccounted investments, value of unexplained investment, addition on account of dividend and interest income, unexplained receipts, profit from sunrise enterprise, share trading profit, disallowance of deduction on interest expenditure, set off of addition on account of source, levy of interest, and invocation of provisions of s. 220(2) of the Act. Additional ground raised regarding taxing assets and income in the hands of another individual.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the assessment order for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Grounds raised include non-compliance with principles of natural justice, incorrect determination of income, issues with purchase and sale of shares, treatment of unexplained investments, granting partial credit, unaccounted investments, valuation of investments, addition of dividend and interest income, unexplained receipts, profit from specific enterprises, share trading profit, deduction on interest expenditure, set off against source, levy of interest, and invocation of specific provisions of the Act.

2. The appellant argued for consideration based on decisions of other Tribunal cases within the appellant's group. The Special Counsel contended that due to unaudited and improperly maintained books of account, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer would serve no purpose. The Tribunal reviewed the impugned order, other Tribunal decisions within the group, and the grounds raised. It noted similarities with other cases and decided to set aside the matter for a fresh assessment denovo based on the findings in similar cases within the group.

3. The Tribunal emphasized maintaining consistency with previous decisions involving similar facts and issues within the appellant's group. Following the pattern set by earlier judgments, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh assessment denovo by the Assessing Officer with specific directions to provide effective hearing opportunities to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, aligning with the decisions in similar cases within the group.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the grounds of appeal, arguments presented, Tribunal's review of the impugned order, consideration of previous decisions within the group, and the ultimate decision to set aside the matter for fresh assessment denovo.