9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 593 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144 - case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify unsecured loans from persons who have not filed return of income - CIT-A Rejected additional evidence as admitted u/sec. 46A - HELD THAT - We find that there is negligence on the part of the assessee to file the details before the AO, however, in the interest of justice and by following the principles of the natural justice one more opportunity should be given to the assessee. Before us, ld. AR also assured that assessee will appear before the AO and file all the relevant details. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate her case before the AO. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
1. Refusal to admit evidences by CIT(A) 2. Justification of additions by AO and CIT(A) 3. Negligence in filing details before AO 4. Opportunity for assessee to substantiate case before AO Analysis: Issue 1: Refusal to admit evidences by CIT(A) The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee raised grounds related to the refusal of the CIT(A) to admit evidences supporting facts already on record and based on third party statements and confirmations. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unsecured loans, trade creditors, provisions for expenses, and disallowances. The Tribunal noted the negligence of the assessee in not filing details before the AO. The assessee requested to admit additional evidence and remit the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case before the AO by filing a paper book. Issue 2: Justification of additions by AO and CIT(A) The AO had made additions towards unsecured loans, trade creditors, provisions for expenses, and disallowances. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions, which were contested by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not respond to the AO's notices, leading to the completion of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite the negligence of the assessee, the Tribunal decided to give another chance for the assessee to present relevant details before the AO for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. Issue 3: Negligence in filing details before AO The Tribunal acknowledged the failure of the assessee to provide details before the AO, which led to the completion of assessment under section 144. The assessee submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A), seeking its admission under section 46A of the IT Rules. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence and upheld the AO's order. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of natural justice and decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present her case before the AO by filing a paper book. Issue 4: Opportunity for assessee to substantiate case before AO Despite the initial negligence of the assessee in not responding to the AO's notices, the Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, decided to provide another chance for the assessee to substantiate her case. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the paper book to be filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair opportunity for the assessee to present her case effectively.
|
