9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 310 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained credits received - accommodation entry received from Sh. S.K. Gupta - Held that - The assessee during the section 153 proceedings before the AO could not produce any documents to substantiate the receipts on account of FDR receipts in her capital account. The AO s finding that no such credit is appearing in the bank account statement provided by the assessee and since assessee could not produce any documents substantiate the same. The AO added the said amount to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credit. Before the CIT(Appeals) also the assessee had made all the contentions which has been raised before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) has not accepted the contentions raised by the assessee since the assessee could not offer any evidence to support the explanation that was given before him. Before us also the ld. AR could not produce any documents to substantiate his explanation regarding this aspect, so that we could take a different view on the issue. Therefore, we are inclined to confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals) in this behalf and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the appellant on this issue stands dismissed. - Decided against assessee. Penalty u/s 271AAA - CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed on the surrender of income - Held that - Since the penalty was imposed on an assessee who was also searched along with the appellant Smt. Uma Singal and whose penalty was also levied on the similar grounds has now been deleted by this Tribunal on the reasons afore-stated. Respectfully concurring with the view of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal and, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the revenue s appeal against deletion of the penalty is imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order. 2. Deletion of addition made by the AO on account of unexplained credits. 3. Jurisdiction and natural justice concerns regarding the assessment order. 4. Addition of FDR receipt as unexplained credit. 5. Deletion of penalty imposed under section 271AAA. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect in law and facts, specifically challenging the deletion of Rs. 42,18,037/- added by the AO as unexplained credits. The CIT(A) held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. S.K. Gupta, whose statement was the sole basis for the addition. The CIT(A) also noted that the alleged accommodation entries were related to transactions that were duly recorded and supported by documentary evidence, such as contract notes and bank statements. 2. Deletion of Addition Made by the AO on Account of Unexplained Credits: The AO added Rs. 42,18,037/- as unexplained credits based on the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta, who admitted to providing accommodation entries. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, emphasizing that the assessee was not given a chance to cross-examine Sh. S.K. Gupta and that the transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the lack of incriminating material found during the search and the failure to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. S.K. Gupta. 3. Jurisdiction and Natural Justice Concerns: The assessee argued that the assessment order was without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice, as the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta was recorded behind the assessee's back and not provided for rebuttal. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the AO's finding that the assessee did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine Sh. S.K. Gupta was factually incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the addition could not be sustained based on the unverified statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta. 4. Addition of FDR Receipt as Unexplained Credit: In the case of Ms. Uma Singal, the AO added Rs. 6,76,673/- as unexplained credit, as the assessee could not produce documents to substantiate the FDR receipt. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the Tribunal concurred, noting that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to support the explanation regarding the FDR receipt. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appeal on this issue. 5. Deletion of Penalty Imposed Under Section 271AAA: The Revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- imposed under section 271AAA on Ms. Uma Singal. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, relying on a Tribunal order in a similar case, where it was held that the penalty could not be imposed in the absence of specific queries regarding the manner of earning undisclosed income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue could not present any new facts to warrant a different view. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross objections, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice, proper jurisdiction, and the need for substantive evidence to support additions and penalties in tax assessments. The appeals were dismissed, and the deletion of the penalty was upheld.
|
