2025 (7) TMI 232 - AT - Income Tax

Ex parte order passed by CIT(A) - Unexplained money u/s 69A of cash sales - taxation u/s 115BBE - assessee submitted that noncompliance by assessee was not deliberate but due to non-receipt of the notices issued by the CIT(A) HELD THAT - The appellant has now furnished additional evidence including contra confirmations of customers VAT returns of the year month-wise sales and cash deposits of AY.2016-17 2017-18 and stock statement of gold ornament and bar. Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 permits the ITAT to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. The intention behind the Rule is that substantial justice should be done and interests of justice should be overriding consideration. The appellant could not produce all the details and evidences for the reasons discussed earlier. The additional evidence filed by the appellant is accordingly admitted and the order of CIT(A) is set aside. Since the AO has also not verified the details filed by the assessee the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to submit documentary evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice and equity.

2. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 1,60,96,771/- on account of unexplained money from cash sales and cash-in-hand deposits, and the consequent taxation under section 115BBE at 60%, was justified without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

3. Whether the assessment was completed without considering the factual documents, evidence, books of account, and VAT audit reports submitted by the assessee, and if such omission was justified.

4. Whether the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271AAC read with section 274, and under section 274 read with section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, in respect of income referred to in section 69A, were rightly confirmed by the CIT(Appeals).

5. Whether the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal should be admitted and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(Appeals) without Opportunity and Natural Justice

Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that an assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard before adverse orders are passed. The Income-tax Act and procedural rules mandate that appeals be decided on the basis of material on record and after hearing the parties.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(Appeals) had issued four notices fixing hearing dates, but the assessee did not comply. Consequently, the CIT(A) proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal confirming the AO's additions. The Tribunal observed that the non-compliance appeared to be due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee, as contended by the assessee's representative.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee submitted that the notices were sent to an incorrect e-mail ID, resulting in non-receipt and inability to respond. The Tribunal found this explanation plausible and noted that the assessee had filed voluminous details before the AO but required adequate time to compile and submit evidence.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the importance of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the ex parte dismissal without ensuring the assessee had a fair opportunity to be heard was not justified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue supported confirmation of the CIT(A) order, but the Tribunal prioritized the assessee's explanation and the need for fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the assessee proper opportunity, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Addition Under Section 69A and Taxation Under Section 115BBE Without Opportunity

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A deals with unexplained money found with the assessee, permitting the AO to make additions if the source is not satisfactorily explained. Section 115BBE provides for taxation of such unexplained income at a higher rate of 60%. However, procedural fairness requires that the assessee be given an opportunity to explain and substantiate cash deposits or sales.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO made an addition of Rs. 1,60,96,771/- under section 69A on account of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee had submitted a cash book but without supporting documentary evidence such as bills or vouchers. The AO allowed opening cash balance but disallowed the remainder. The Tribunal noted that the AO could not verify the list of 150 purchasers submitted late in the proceedings due to time constraints.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee filed additional evidence before the Tribunal, including contra confirmations from customers, VAT returns, month-wise sales and cash deposit details, and stock statements of gold ornaments and bars. These were not considered by the AO or CIT(A) due to procedural limitations.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that the AO's addition was based on incomplete verification and lack of opportunity to verify the extensive evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must verify the additional evidence and afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity before making any addition under section 69A.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue urged confirmation of the addition, while the assessee sought admission of additional evidence and remand for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and held that the addition under section 69A could not be sustained without proper verification and opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

Issue 3: Assessment Completion Without Considering Factual Documents and Audit Reports

Legal Framework and Precedents: Assessments under the Income-tax Act must be completed after considering all relevant material and evidence furnished by the assessee. Failure to do so may render the assessment incomplete or invalid.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO completed the assessment expeditiously due to time constraints and inability to verify voluminous details such as confirmation from multiple purchasers. The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the VAT audit and other documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's submissions included VAT returns, cash book, bank statements, and stock statements which were not examined by the AO. The Tribunal noted the necessity of verifying these documents for a fair assessment.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that the assessment order was incomplete and did not comply with the requirement to consider all relevant evidence. The AO was directed to consider all materials afresh.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not dispute the procedural incompleteness but urged confirmation of the order.

Conclusion: The assessment was set aside for fresh adjudication after considering all relevant evidence.

Issue 4: Confirmation of Penalty Proceedings Under Sections 271AAC and 274

Legal Framework and Precedents: Penalties under sections 271AAC and 274 are imposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, such penalties must be confirmed only after proper adjudication and opportunity to the assessee.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO. The Tribunal observed that since the additions and assessment were set aside for fresh adjudication, the penalty confirmation was premature.

Key Evidence and Findings: The penalty related to the unexplained income under section 69A, which was not conclusively established due to procedural deficiencies.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings should be reconsidered in light of the fresh assessment and evidence.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue supported confirmation, but the Tribunal emphasized the interdependence of penalty and assessment findings.

Conclusion: The penalty confirmation was set aside for reconsideration after fresh assessment.

Issue 5: Admission of Additional Evidence and Remand for Fresh Adjudication

Legal Framework and Precedents: Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the Tribunal to admit additional evidence for substantial cause, with the overriding objective of substantial justice.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessee's failure to produce all evidence before the AO and CIT(A) was due to voluminous data and procedural difficulties, including non-receipt of notices.

Key Evidence and Findings: The additional evidence included contra confirmations, VAT returns, detailed sales and cash deposit data, and stock statements, which were relevant and material.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not oppose admission of evidence but requested the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

Significant Holdings

"Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the ITAT to admit additional evidence for any substantial cause. The intention behind the Rule is that substantial justice should be done and interests of justice should be overriding consideration."

"The continuous non-compliance leads to conclusion that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal." (Notwithstanding, the Tribunal accepted the explanation of non-receipt of notices.)

"The additional evidence filed by the appellant is accordingly admitted and the order of CIT(A) is set aside."

"Since the AO has also not verified the details filed by the assessee, the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee."

"The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose."

Core Principles Established:

- The principles of natural justice require that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence and be heard before adverse orders are passed.

- Additions under section 69A and taxation under section 115BBE must be based on verified evidence and after affording the assessee an opportunity to explain.

- Assessments must be completed after considering all relevant evidence and documents submitted by the assessee.

- Penalty proceedings are dependent on the findings of the assessment and should be reconsidered if the assessment is set aside.

- The Tribunal has discretion under Rule 29 to admit additional evidence for substantial cause to serve the ends of justice.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

1. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to submit evidence; the dismissal was set aside.

2. The addition under section 69A and taxation under section 115BBE were not justified without verification and opportunity; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

3. The assessment was incomplete as relevant documents and audit reports were not considered; the assessment was set aside for reconsideration.

4. The penalty proceedings confirmed by CIT(A) were premature and were set aside pending fresh assessment.

5. Additional evidence filed before the Tribunal was admitted, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication with reasonable opportunity to the assessee.