9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1570 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271E - violation of Section 269T by accepting the cash deposits/loans - additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A) after remand not properly admitted and considered. HELD THAT - As defects pointed out by CIT(A) made basis for rejection of the additional evidence i.e. affidavits and copies of the ledger accounts. While seeking remand report in respect of the said additional evidence CIT(A) had empowered Addl. CIT(A) to conduct enquiry if required and then submit report as regards the issues involved and as to the admissibility of said evidence under Rule 46A. CIT(A) after going through the remand report in the nature of additional evidence opted to admit the same for considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It is significant to note that the AO empowered to conduct an enquiry nowhere observed in the remand report that he did not deem to be a fit case to conduct enquiry as regards the additional evidence. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved the Assessing Officer was required to call upon the assessee to participate in the remand proceedings. Admittedly the assessee was never called by the AO in connection with the remand proceedings as regards additional evidence. Admittedly the AO never issued any summons or process to the assessee or deponents whose affidavits were sent by way of additional evidence by issuing notices. Had the assessee and the deponents whose affidavits were furnished been called to participate in the remand proceedings as regards their deposition in the respective affidavit and as regards the ledger account only then defects pointed by CIT(A) could gain any significance. By not calling upon the assessee or summoning any of the deponents of the affidavits it can safely be said to be gross violation of one of the principles of natural justice i.e. non providing of opportunity of being heard. Thus well settled law on the point of providing of reasonable opportunity of being heard when neither the Assessing Officer conducting the remand proceedings nor Learned CIT(A) while seized of the appeal provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee as regards the additional evidence/defects pointed out for rejecting the same we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) upholding the penalty order deserves to be set aside.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the validity and admissibility of additional evidence submitted by the assessee during remand proceedings, and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act for alleged violation of Section 269T. Specifically, the issues include:
1. Whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the Learned CIT(A) after remand was properly admitted and considered. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer complied with principles of natural justice by providing the assessee an opportunity to participate in remand proceedings and verify the additional evidence through summons or examination of deponents. 3. The adequacy and credibility of the additional evidence, including affidavits and ledger accounts, submitted to prove the genuineness of cash transactions claimed to be site expenses. 4. Whether the penalty under Section 271E for violation of Section 269T was justified in light of the evidence and procedural conduct. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Admission and Consideration of Additional Evidence The legal framework governing additional evidence in income tax appeals is encapsulated in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which permits submission of additional evidence before the appellate authorities under certain conditions. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter to the CIT(A) due to insufficient material to adjudicate on the nature of cash transactions involving loans and advances, directing the assessee to produce further evidence. On remand, the assessee submitted affidavits and ledger accounts as additional evidence. The CIT(A), in the interest of natural justice and following the Tribunal's directions, admitted this evidence without technical objections. This admission aligns with the principle that appellate authorities should not reject additional evidence outright if it is relevant and the appellant has been directed to produce it. The Revenue contended that the affidavits and ledger accounts were not truly additional evidence as they were already on record with the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) correctly observed that these documents were submitted in a notarized form after the initial proceedings and thus qualified as additional evidence for appellate consideration. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice in Remand Proceedings The Assessing Officer was empowered by the CIT(A) to conduct enquiries regarding the additional evidence and submit a remand report. The Assessing Officer submitted a report recommending rejection of the additional evidence, labeling the affidavits as self-serving and the ledger accounts as fabricated afterthoughts. However, the Assessing Officer neither summoned the assessee nor the deponents of the affidavits to verify the authenticity of the evidence during remand proceedings. The assessee repeatedly contended that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the statutory duty of verification by not issuing summons or cross-examining the deponents, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasized that non-provision of such opportunity constitutes a gross violation of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule. The absence of any inquiry or verification by the Assessing Officer before rejecting the evidence undermines the procedural fairness of the penalty proceedings. 3. Adequacy and Credibility of Additional Evidence The CIT(A) undertook a detailed scrutiny of the affidavits and ledger accounts submitted by the assessee. The affidavits lacked critical details such as identity proof of the deponents, employment agreements, salary slips, PAN or Aadhaar numbers, and failed to establish the employment relationship or the nature of transactions purportedly related to site expenses. Similarly, the ledger accounts showed suspicious features such as round figure debit and credit entries, opening credit balances inconsistent with imprest cash accounts, and entries lacking linkage to actual business expenses. The CIT(A) found these documents to be self-serving and colorable devices, prepared post-survey and assessment to mislead the proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted that such findings by the CIT(A) were made without the Assessing Officer conducting any verification or enquiry into the evidence, which was a procedural lapse affecting the reliability of the conclusions. 4. Justification for Penalty under Section 271E for Violation of Section 269T Section 269T prohibits acceptance of loans or deposits in cash beyond prescribed limits, and Section 271E imposes penalty for contravention of this provision. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 46,31,452/- for acceptance of cash deposits/loans violating Section 269T during the relevant financial year. The assessee's defense rested on proving that the cash transactions were legitimate business expenses related to site operations, supported by affidavits and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, rejecting the evidence as fabricated and unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, the Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in not allowing the assessee to participate in remand proceedings and verify the additional evidence vitiated the penalty order. The penalty could not be sustained without affording the assessee a fair opportunity to substantiate the transactions. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Revenue's argument that the evidence was not truly additional and had been rightly rejected as self-serving was countered by the Tribunal's observation that the evidence was admitted in the interest of justice and in compliance with the earlier remand directions. The Revenue's reliance on Rule 46A and the Assessing Officer's remand report was insufficient to justify rejection without enquiry. The assessee's contention regarding denial of opportunity to be heard was upheld as a fundamental procedural lapse, outweighing the Revenue's substantive objections to the evidence. Significant Holdings The Tribunal held that: "Had the assessee and the deponents, whose affidavits were furnished, been called to participate in the remand proceedings as regards their deposition in the respective affidavit, and as regards the ledger account, only then defects pointed by Learned CIT(A) could gain any significance. By not calling upon the assessee or summoning any of the deponents of the affidavits, it can safely be said to be gross violation of one of the principles of natural justice i.e. non providing of opportunity of being heard." It was also observed that: "In view of the above discussion and the well settled law on the point of providing of reasonable opportunity of being heard, when neither the Assessing Officer, conducting the remand proceedings nor Learned CIT(A), while seized of the appeal, provided opportunity of being heard to the assessee as regards the additional evidence/defects pointed out for rejecting the same, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) upholding the penalty order deserves to be set aside." The core principles established include:
Final determinations on the issues were:
|
