9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 778 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A - advance received towards purchase of the property - assessee had failed to furnish any evidence of the return of advance to Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chadha during the assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - It is found that the assessee has produced certain additional documents such as ledger account along with repayment statement duly confirmed by Gurpreet Singh Chaddha and the copy of the bank statement of Gurpreet Singh Chaddha and confirmation of re payment of the advance. The assessee has also enclosed the copy of the ITR and computation of income of Gurpreet Singh Chaddha before the CIT(A). Admittedly, those documents have not been considered by the Ld. A.O., since the assessee has not made available those documents to the A.O. in support of his contention, the A.O. has made addition and passed assessment order based on the material available on record. Since, the assessee has not made available all the documents in support of his contention and the A.O. had no opportunity to test the veracity, genuineness of those documents, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of Ld. A.O. with a direction to the assessee to produce all material evidences in support of his contentions that the assessee had repaid the said amount which was received Gurpreet Singh Chaddha. Further we direct the A.O. to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the Assessee. Accordingly, we allow Ground Of the Revenue s Appeal.
Issues:
- Appeal filed by the Department against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi for assessment years 2016-17. - Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by Ld. CIT (A). - Failure of the assessee to furnish evidence of return of advance to Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chadha. - Allegation of Ld. CIT (A) not providing reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer. - Ld. CIT (A) not calling for a remand report before accepting additional evidence. - Ignoring the fact that the genuineness of the source of funds was not proven by the assessee. Analysis: 1. The Department appealed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi for assessment years 2016-17, specifically challenging the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act by Ld. CIT (A). The Department contended that the advance received from Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chadha towards the purchase of property was not corroborated, as it was not shown as loans and advances in his ITR for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The case involved a situation where the assessee failed to provide evidence of the return of advance to Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chadha during the assessment proceedings. The Department argued that the Ld. CIT (A) did not give a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence, documents, or witnesses produced by the assessee, as required under section 46A(3) of the Act. 3. Additionally, the Department raised concerns about the Ld. CIT (A) not calling for a remand report before accepting the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The Department contended that this action compromised the integrity of the assessment process. 4. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the genuineness of the source of funds, which the assessee failed to do satisfactorily during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT (A) was criticized for ignoring this crucial aspect and for not adequately scrutinizing the evidence presented by the assessee. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue for statistical purposes. The Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer, instructing the assessee to produce all material evidence supporting the contention that the advance received from Gurpreet Singh Chadha was repaid. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider this evidence and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law after hearing the assessee.
|
