2020 (9) TMI 963 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - CIT-A deleted the addition - whether according to Section 250(6) CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order while deciding the appeal? - HELD THAT - D.R, rightly contended that since the CIT(A) has not recorded any finding of fact for assessment year under appeal i.e., A.Y. 2013-2014, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion and without deciding the issue on merits, we set aside the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter in issue to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with Law by giving reasons for decision in appellate order based on the evidences on record in the light of finding of fact recorded by the A.O, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the A.O - Appeal of Revenue allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?2.00 crores made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Deletion of the said addition by the Ld. CIT(A).
3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The issue in this case revolves around the addition of ?2.00 crores under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) found that the assessee received an unsecured loan from a company, and after failing to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, the A.O. made the aforementioned addition.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) analyzed the facts and found that the appellant had taken loans from the company in question previously, and the interest was claimed and allowed by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the same addition had been taxed in the hands of the lending company in a previous assessment year. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of ?2.00 crores, emphasizing that the A.O. was unjustified in invoking section 68 of the Act.

3. The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide sufficient reasons for the decision and failed to address the requirements of section 68. The Revenue sought a remand for a fresh order. On the other hand, the Assessee's counsel highlighted a previous decision where a similar matter was decided in favor of the assessee. However, it was noted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not specifically address the facts of the current assessment year in his order.

4. Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal concluded that the matter needed reconsideration by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction under section 68. As the Ld. CIT(A) did not provide detailed reasons or findings for the deletion of the addition in the current assessment year, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision based on the evidence and findings of the A.O.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Ld. CIT(A) to re-decide the appeal in accordance with the law, ensuring a thorough examination of the evidence and reasons for the decision in the appellate order.