9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 948 - AT - Income TaxLumpsum / ad hoc addition - capital investment made by the assessee treating the same as undisclosed purchase - HELD THAT - As we find that necessary supporting documents to substantiate the addition in assets by way of fresh investment are furnished before the Ld. AO however the addition was made on account of unexplained investment whereas referring to the bank statement of the assessee the source of investment cannot be construed as unexplained at threshold without considering the entries through banking channel which are claimed to be duly recorded in the books of the assessee. It cannot be said that all the evidence laid are ingenuine or bogus and the transactions is totally through unexplained investments. However it seems that the assessee was unable to explain the source of investment made to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO which though as per the narrative in the assessment order does not find to be specifically harped upon by the AO when the part information was furnished by the assessee. Since the information furnished before us supports the assessee s contention that the investments are made from explained sources subject to verification of such evidence thus it would be fair and justified to restore this issue back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Lumpsum / ad hoc addition on account of clerical error made by assessee treating the same as short term capital gain - HELD THAT - On perusal of the depreciation chart of the assessee it is evident that there was no entry in the column SOLD therefore the inference that there was a sale of asset during the year under consideration by the AO cannot be subscribed to in absence of any evidence to prove so only on the basis of presumption or failure of assessee to furnish the supporting evidence regarding the method of depreciation due to which such change in closing stock viz-a-viz opening stock was occurred. This issue needs further examination / investigation therefore in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to set aside the same to the file of Ld. AO for verification and fresh adjudication. Lumpsum / adhoc addition on account of change in the value of opening stock of furniture and fittings - HELD THAT - Since the issue pertains to clerical error in computation of depreciation which arises because the assessee was unable to explain the same with supporting evidence before the Ld. AO the same thus is covered by our observations to the issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 6 of the present appeal therefore we deem it fit to restore the same back to the file of Ld. AO for verification and fresh adjudication.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the appeal arising under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity and fairness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order and natural justice concerns Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that a party be given adequate opportunity to present its case. The procedural fairness in appellate proceedings is governed by the Income Tax Act and judicial precedents such as Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT and Kalsaria Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, which emphasize that appeals cannot be kept pending indefinitely and that parties must be vigilant in prosecuting their appeals. Court's Reasoning: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee failed to file written submissions despite repeated opportunities and a specific request for a three-month extension was denied, with only five days granted. The Commissioner held that mere filing of appeal is insufficient; effective hearing and representation are necessary. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee was deemed not interested in pursuing it. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish any explanation or evidence during appellate proceedings and failed to respond adequately to notices. The procedural steps followed by the AO and CIT(A) were found valid and lawful. The dismissal on procedural grounds was supported by judicial decisions emphasizing the duty of the appellant to actively prosecute the appeal. Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds was justified as per established legal principles and precedents. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 96,99,743/- as unexplained capital investment under Section 69 Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act allows addition to income where the assessee fails to explain the nature and source of investment. The burden lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness and source of such investments with supporting documents. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish bills or vouchers for the claimed capital investment. The assessee contended that the investment was routed through banking channels and supporting documents were furnished. The Tribunal examined the bank statements, ledger accounts, and invoices submitted during the appeal. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished part information and supporting documents indicating the investment was made from explained sources through banking channels. The AO's addition was based on the absence of satisfactory explanation, but the Tribunal held that the evidence on record could not be disregarded as bogus or fabricated. Application of Law to Facts: Given the partial explanation and supporting evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the issue required further verification and could not be decided conclusively against the assessee at this stage. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's argument of explained source was accepted to the extent that the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The revenue's reliance on the AO's findings was rejected as premature without thorough examination of the evidence. Conclusion: The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with directions to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence and explanations. The ground was allowed partly for statistical purposes. Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 5,98,030/- on account of short-term capital gain due to alleged clerical error Legal Framework: Income from short-term capital gain arises from sale of capital assets. The AO must establish sale or transfer of assets to justify such addition. The method of depreciation and accounting treatment are relevant to ascertain asset values. Court's Reasoning: The AO observed a discrepancy between the closing balance of plant and machinery in AY 2015-16 and the opening balance in AY 2016-17, treating the difference as short-term capital gain. The assessee explained the discrepancy was due to change in the method of depreciation and denied any sale of assets. Key Evidence: The depreciation chart submitted by the assessee showed no entries indicating sale of plant and machinery. The AO's presumption of sale was unsubstantiated by evidence. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that in absence of proof of sale, the addition could not be sustained merely on presumption. The matter required further investigation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee's explanation was accepted as plausible, and the revenue's argument was rejected for lack of evidence. Conclusion: The addition was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication with opportunity to the assessee to present evidence. Ground allowed partly for statistical purposes. Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 1,45,473/- due to unexplained increase in opening stock of furniture and fittings Legal Framework: Under Section 69, unexplained investments or unexplained increases in assets can be added to income if not satisfactorily explained. Court's Reasoning: The AO noted an increase in opening balance of furniture and fittings and treated it as unexplained investment. The assessee attributed the discrepancy to clerical errors in depreciation accounting corrected during the year. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that this issue was closely linked to the depreciation accounting issue in ground no. 3. Since the assessee failed to provide adequate explanation before the AO, the addition was made. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue to the AO for verification and fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish necessary evidence. Conclusion: The addition was set aside for fresh adjudication and the ground was allowed partly for statistical purposes. Issue 5: Validity of assessment proceedings and statutory notices Legal Framework: Validity of assessment depends on proper issuance and service of statutory notices and adherence to procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act. Court's Reasoning: The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no objection raised by the assessee regarding the validity of notices or assessment procedure. The notices under Sections 143(2), 142(1), and 144 were issued and served in accordance with law. Application of Law to Facts: The procedural compliance was affirmed and the assessment order was held to be valid and lawful. Conclusion: No infirmity found in the assessment procedure or issuance of notices. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights." "Mere filing of an appeal is not enough, rather it requires effective hearing also." "The issuance and service of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is valid and lawful. The Id. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration according to procedures provided in the Act and made additions ... as per following procedure provided in the I.T. Act, 1961 and principals of natural justice." "Since the information furnished before us supports the assessee's contention that the investments are made from explained sources subject to verification of such evidence, thus, it would be fair and justified to restore this issue back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication." "In absence of any evidence to prove sale of plant and machinery, the inference drawn by the AO that there was a sale during the year cannot be subscribed to." "Issues relating to clerical errors in depreciation and unexplained investment require fresh verification and adjudication with reasonable opportunity to the assessee." Final determinations:
|
