2019 (5) TMI 1326 - AT - Income Tax

Additions u/s 69C - fresh opportunity to examine addition u/s 68 - treatment of alleged purchases as bogus expenses - HELD THAT - Purchases were debited in the regular books of account of the assessee. The sales out of the purchases were accepted by the A.O. Find that the notices issued by the A.O on the address of M/s Kumar Sales were duly served. Nothing prevented the A.O to issue summons to M/s Kumar Sales to force its attendance and examine the transaction. I further find that the CIT(A) realizing that Section 69C is not applicable on the facts of the case invoked Section 68 The power of the CIT(A) are co terminus to that of the A.O and, therefore, he should have examined the transaction if he wanted to invoke the provisions of Section 68. Failing which the action of the CIT (A) cannot be upheld. The contention of the DR that fresh opportunity should be given to the CIT (A) to examine the transaction does not have any force. No second innings should be given to examine the same set of facts which were very much before the lower authorities. No merit in the order of the CIT(A). Direct the A.O to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of additions made under different sections of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application of Sections 69C and 68 on the disputed transactions.
3. Examination of transaction details and invoices by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals].
4. Authority of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] vis-a-vis Assessing Officer in scrutinizing transactions.
5. Justification for deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised concerns regarding the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, despite the Assessing Officer initially invoking Section 69C for the same transactions.
2. The Assessing Officer had added a specific amount to the assessee's income under Section 69C due to alleged bogus expenses on purchases from a certain entity. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] later reevaluated the situation and applied Section 68 to treat a credit amount as unexplained income.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] reviewed the case, acknowledging that Section 69C was not applicable, but proceeded to add the credit amount under Section 68. The assessee provided detailed explanations, including sale transaction evidence and banking statements, to support the legitimacy of the transactions.
4. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the powers of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] are similar to those of the Assessing Officer and criticized the Commissioner's failure to thoroughly examine the transactions before invoking Section 68. The Tribunal emphasized that no fresh opportunity should be granted to reexamine previously available facts.
5. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under Section 68, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and ruling in favor of the assessee's position regarding the disputed transactions.

This detailed analysis outlines the progression of the case, highlighting the discrepancies in the application of different sections of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent decision by the Appellate Tribunal to overturn the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68.