RNP SCAFFOLDING AND FORMWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHAPE vs. MUMBAI DCIT CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI, NAVI MUMBAI

The solitary substantive grievance of the assessee pertains to the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 5,86,25,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credits representing unsecured loans received from the following parties:

At the outset of the hearing, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the application filed under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, seeking admission of additional evidence comprising: (a) ledger accounts along with certified bank statements evidencing subsequent repayment of Rs. 52,25,000/- to M/s Zeme Realtech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Calculated Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ainox Distributors Pvt. Ltd.; (b) certified copy of the plaint in Summary Civil

The Ld. AR submitted that these documents could not be produced before the lower authorities as they relate to subsequent events and are relevant to the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders.

On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed their admission at this belated stage but conceded that, since the documents were not examined by the lower authorities, factual verification would be required.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 empowers the Tribunal to admit additional evidence where the same is necessary for disposing of the appeal or for any other substantial cause. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has recognised the wide powers of the appellate authorities to admit material necessary for determining the correct tax liability.

Considering the nature of the additional evidence and the fact that the same relates to subsequent events, we find sufficient cause for its admission. The documents are also relevant to the issue arising under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the application under Rule 29 is allowed and the additional evidence is admitted on record.

However, since the additional evidence has not been examined by the lower authorities, the Revenue must be afforded an opportunity to verify the same. We,

The AO shall, in particular, verify the subsequent repayments and relevant bank statements, the genuineness and current status of Summary Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024, and the ROC/MCA records and other relevant material concerning the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO shall thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The assessee shall cooperate with the AO and furnish the necessary evidence, explanations and books of account without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by AO independently in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.