2016 (3) TMI 456 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Held that - The case has been reopened U/s 148 on the basis of search conducted in the case of M/s B.C. Purohit and company group on 12/4/2005. M/s Bansal Oil Mills Ltd. (assessee) also found beneficiary and had received accommodation entry of ₹ 3 lacs from M/s K.G. Petrochem (P) Ltd. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe to reopen the case U/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly the action of the Assessing Officer on reopening is confirmed. Addition u/s 68 - non providing of cross examination - Held that - CIT(A) had not provided cross examination of the party whose statement had been used against the assessee as an evidence, which was asked to be cross examined by the assessee vide letter dated 30/11/2010. By respectfully following the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT , this issue is set aside to the Assessing Officer and the ld Assessing Officer is directed to provide copy of statement and required copy of seized material for explaining the cash creditor by the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is set aside to the Assessing Officer for denovo. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes only.

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 to total income - creditworthiness and genuineness of lender company.
2. Validity of invoking Sections 147 and 68 of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Relevance of statement recorded in another case in making additions.
4. Consideration of detailed submissions and judicial decisions by the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 3,00,000 to total income - creditworthiness and genuineness of lender company
The appeal was against the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 to the appellant's total income by the Assessing Authority. The appellant argued that the loan was transacted through legitimate means, including account payee cheques, with proper documentation, TDS deductions, and interest payments. However, the Assessing Officer held that the appellant failed to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The lender's bank account details were not provided, and the lender was not produced for verification. The Assessing Officer concluded it was an accommodation entry and made the addition under Section 68 of the IT Act.

Issue 2: Validity of invoking Sections 147 and 68 of the IT Act, 1961
The Assessing Officer invoked Sections 147 and 68 of the IT Act based on information obtained during a search conducted in another case involving a different group. The appellant challenged the reopening under Section 147, arguing that no scrutiny had been conducted earlier and that the reasons for reopening were not justified. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to reopen the case, considering the appellant's connection to the group under scrutiny and the accommodation entry received.

Issue 3: Relevance of statement recorded in another case in making additions
The Assessing Officer relied on statements recorded in a different case to make additions to the appellant's income. The appellant contested this, stating that the statements did not directly implicate them and requested the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and access relevant documents. The Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The issue was set aside for further examination.

Issue 4: Consideration of detailed submissions and judicial decisions by the appellant
The appellant contended that detailed submissions and judicial decisions supporting their case were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide necessary documents and allow cross-examination, following the principles of natural justice. The appellant's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures in tax assessments.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the addition of income, the validity of reopening the case, the use of statements from other cases, and the importance of following principles of natural justice in tax proceedings. The appellant's arguments were considered, and the case was remanded for further examination to ensure a fair assessment process.

← Previous Next →