2020 (6) TMI 502 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 80C - addition u/s. 68 towards unexplained cash deposited in the SB Account - case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) - AR submitted that the assessee was not able to produce sufficient evidence to justify his claim which resulted in the addition and was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) - HELD THAT - It is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that proper opportunities were provided to the assessee. In this situation, the prayer of the Ld. AR does not have much merits. However, considering the financial strain of the assessee and the nature of additions made, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-novo consideration. I also hereby direct the assessee and his AR to promptly co-operate before the Ld. Revenue Authorities failing which the ld. Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on record.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of CIT(A) - Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act - Disallowance under section 80C - Enhancement of income - Applicability of section 69A - Remand for de-novo consideration.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee raised various grounds challenging the correctness of the order. The issues raised included the addition of a specific amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the disallowance under section 80C, enhancement of income by another amount, and the applicability of section 69A to a certain sum. The assessee, engaged in a tent house business, initially admitted an income of a certain amount in the return filed manually. However, during scrutiny, the Assessing Officer disallowed a claim under section 80C and added an amount under section 68 for unexplained cash deposited in a savings account.

The Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee argued that the assessee was unable to produce sufficient evidence to support the claim, leading to the additions. The AR requested another opportunity for the assessee to provide the necessary evidence, citing financial difficulties faced by the assessee. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) contended that ample opportunities were already given to the assessee to address the queries raised by the revenue authorities, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

After considering the submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had been provided with adequate opportunities by the revenue authorities. Despite the financial constraints mentioned, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the assessee and the AR to cooperate promptly with the revenue authorities during the reassessment process. Failure to cooperate could result in the revenue authorities passing appropriate orders based on the available materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, indicating a remand for de-novo consideration by the Assessing Officer. The decision was pronounced in an open court on a specific date in 2020.