9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 882 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - CIT(A) deleted addition quashing reopening assessment admitting additional evidence - Held that - From the perusal of the CIT(A) s order we do not find any thing as to the prayer made by the assessee company for admission of additional evidence. The reassessment was made u/s 144 of the Act. It implies that the assessment was made for non cooperation, non production evidence before the Assessing Officer. If the CIT(A) grant relief, obviously it means that the assessee had filed some additional evidence in rebuttal of the assessment order. But, it appears from the order of the CIT(A) that he had not given the Assessing Officer reasonable opportunity- (a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the assessee company (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. As per the mandate of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the appeal shall be reheard and the Assessing Officer shall be given reasonable opportunity as per provisions of Clause(3) of Rule 46A of the Rules, 1962 and dispose of the matter accordingly. - Decided partly in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment proceedings under section 147. 2. Admission of additional evidence without affording opportunity to Assessing Officer. 3. Deletion of additions on account of unexplained cash credit and expenses. 4. Justification of invoking provisions of Section 145 of the Act. 5. Deletion of addition on account of net profit ratio. Validity of Reopening Assessment Proceedings: The appeal pertained to the AY 1999-2000 challenging the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment based on information regarding cash investment by the assessee company. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) misdirected himself by equating reason to believe with reason to suspect. Referring to legal precedents, the ITAT concluded that the information received gave the Assessing Officer sufficient reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. It was emphasized that in such cases, the duty of the Assessing Officer is to determine the taxable entity. The ITAT ruled that the reassessment proceedings were valid and not invalidated as held by the CIT(A). Admission of Additional Evidence: The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without providing an opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine or rebut it, contravening Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not follow the mandatory procedures for admitting additional evidence, leading to a violation of the rule. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for rehearing, directing compliance with the provisions of Rule 46A and ensuring the Assessing Officer is given a reasonable opportunity. Deletion of Additions on Cash Credit and Expenses: The ITAT addressed the deletion of additions made on account of unexplained cash credit and expenses by the CIT(A). It highlighted that the CIT(A) accepted additional evidence without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine or rebut it, violating Rule 46A. Consequently, the ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for proper disposal in accordance with the rules. Justification of Invoking Section 145 of the Act: The ITAT mentioned that the CIT(A) held the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Section 145 of the Act. However, detailed analysis or ruling on this issue was not explicitly provided in the judgment. Deletion of Addition on Net Profit Ratio: The ITAT noted the deletion of an addition made on account of the net profit ratio by the CIT(A). However, specific details or reasoning regarding this deletion were not elaborated upon in the judgment. In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, primarily focusing on the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the admission of additional evidence without affording the Assessing Officer a fair opportunity. The judgment emphasized adherence to procedural rules and directed a rehearing of the matter to ensure compliance with legal requirements.
|
