9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1208 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash credit addition u/s 68 - Held that - Neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts in right perspective and did not make the further inquiry from those persons who furnished the confirmations and affidavits stating therein that the impugned amount was given to the assessee and the said amount was received by them from different customers from whom booking amount for plots/flats had been collected. We therefore considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition of ?10,03,46,128/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Levy of interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Addition as Unexplained Cash Credit: The primary issue revolves around the addition of ?10,03,46,128/- to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that this amount represented advances received against the sale of plots through marketing agents and not unexplained cash credits. The assessee provided various documents, including agreements, affidavits, and confirmations from the marketing agents, M/s Mahamedha Builders and M/s Superior Associates, who collected the booking amounts from customers. The Assessing Officer (AO) scrutinized the details and found discrepancies, such as the conditional approval from HPDA and the authenticity of the agreements. Notices issued under Section 133(6) to some customers returned unserved, and one customer, Ms. Asha Premnath, denied any transaction with the assessee. The AO concluded that the transactions were not genuine and treated the amount as unexplained cash credit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, noting that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) emphasized that the affidavits and confirmations from the marketing agents were insufficient to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided substantial documentation, including affidavits and confirmations from the marketing agents who were assessed to tax. However, the AO and CIT(A) did not fully appreciate these facts. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for further inquiry into the confirmations and affidavits provided by the marketing agents. 2. Levy of Interest under Section 234B: The second issue concerns the levy of interest under Section 234B amounting to ?1,22,73,255/-. The assessee contended that the interest was not leviable based on the facts of the case. However, the detailed discussion and conclusion on this issue were not provided in the judgment summary. The Tribunal's decision to remit the primary issue back to the AO implicitly includes reconsideration of the interest levy under Section 234B. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue of unexplained cash credit and the levy of interest under Section 234B after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
|
