2014 (11) TMI 66 - AT - Income Tax

Denial of additional evidences Held that - CIT(A) ought to have examined whether the confirmations are fabricated or genuine - the Directors of the assessee-company categorically stated that the transactions are not genuine - If the transactions are genuine and it is proved so, in that eventuality such amount cannot be taxed and in case, if it is proved that the confirmations are fabricated or not genuine, otherwise created to make non-genuine transaction as genuine transaction, in that eventuality the criminal liability would be attracted under the various provisions of the Act - if any credit entries reflected into the account of the assessee the assessee is required to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors - out of the three ingredients, the assessee has established the identity of the creditors by furnishing the PANs and confirmation from such creditors although at the stage of CIT(A) - However, the other two ingredients are required to be established by the assessee thus, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for adjudication Decided in favour of assessee. Admissibility of expenses Applicability of judgments relied upon by assessee - Held that - Before the CIT(A) various judgements were relied upon by the assessee in support of its contention - There is no whisper as to how these judgements are not applicable on the facts of the present case thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order upholding additions and disallowances.
2. Non-admission of additional evidence.
3. Unexplained deposits from three parties.
4. Non-commencement of business activity and disallowance of expenditure.
5. Reliance on statements of directors and acceptance letter.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order:
The appellant contested the legality of the order passed by CIT(A) upholding the additions of Rs. 5,37,21,000 and disallowance of Rs. 68,05,325, claiming it was "wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice." However, this ground was deemed general and required no independent adjudication.

2. Non-admission of Additional Evidence:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence regarding the impugned additions, despite satisfying conditions under Rule 46A. The appellant failed to produce confirmations for deposits from M/s. Jupiter Business Ltd. and M/s. Sudarshan Enterprise during the assessment but provided them during the appeal. The CIT(A) did not admit these additional evidences, citing that the appellant had sufficient opportunity to present them earlier and that the directors had admitted the transactions were non-genuine during a survey. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have examined the authenticity of these confirmations and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh decision, allowing the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions and confirmations.

3. Unexplained Deposits:
The appellant challenged the CIT(A)'s decision confirming that deposits aggregating to Rs. 5,37,21,000 from three parties were unexplained. The Tribunal noted that the directors admitted these transactions were merely book entries to route unaccounted money. Despite providing confirmations later, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO to examine the genuineness of these transactions and the authenticity of the evidence provided.

4. Non-commencement of Business Activity and Disallowance of Expenditure:
The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 68,05,325 on the grounds that the business activity had not commenced. The AO disallowed the expenditure, stating that expenses incurred before the commencement of business are not allowable. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting the appellant's acceptance of the disallowance figure during assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the appellant's reliance on various judgments supporting their claim that the business had commenced. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh decision, instructing the AO to consider the appellant's submissions and relevant judgments.

5. Reliance on Statements of Directors and Acceptance Letter:
The appellant contended that the lower authorities erred in relying on the directors' statements and acceptance letter to uphold the additions and disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the directors' statements, recorded under oath, admitted the non-genuineness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to verify the authenticity of the confirmations provided later.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal remitting the issues back to the AO for fresh decision, emphasizing the need to verify the genuineness of transactions and the authenticity of the evidence provided by the appellant.