Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A) order confirming an addition of Rs. 59,08,000/- for AY 2012-13. This addition arose from a discrepancy between undisclosed income declared after a search and the income computed in the return, compounded by alleged bogus expenses admitted during a survey. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's failure to file submissions or evidence.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to properly submit evidence to lower authorities but found that certain documents filed before it had not been verified. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing him to consider the documents filed by the assessee, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee for lack of cooperation in prior proceedings.
Key Issues
Whether the additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were valid given the assessee's claim of having submitted documentary evidence, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh verification of these documents.
Sections Cited
250, 131, 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 12.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2012-13.
Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the income of the assessee at Rs. 2,23,97,440/- as against the income declared by the assessee of Rs. 1,64,89,440/-. In this regard, we have heard counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, we noticed that as a result of ‘search’ conducted on 11.01.2012, assessee declared Rs. 1,90,00,000/- “undisclosed additional income” over and above the income shown in the books of account as on 11.01.2012.
However, in the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the AO that assessee had declared only Rs. 1,30,92,000/- in the computation of income which was filed while filing the return of income. Hence there was a difference of Rs. 59,08,000/- which could not be substantiated by leading any evidence by the assessee.
Since assessee himself had admitted during the course of survey that the expenses claimed by him were bogus, thus additions were accordingly made.
Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but did not file any submissions or evidences in order to substantiate the grounds raised by him before Ld. CIT(A), therefore the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Now before us, at the outset, assessee submitted that he had filed relevant documentary evidences in support of the expenses claimed by him, however AO ignored the said evidences and only relied upon the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act which has no evidentiary value.
On the contrary Ld. DR contested said arguments of the assessee and submitted that revenue authorities have fully considered the documents and the arguments of the assessee but assessee failed to substantiate his grounds before both the revenue authorities. Therefore requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, we find that certain documents have been filed by the assessee before us with a certification that these documents relating to job work charges, labour charges and supervision charges and the same have been filed but have not been considered by the revenue authorities. Ld. AR has not filed any details, indexation of page nos of the documents and the date of submissions of the same before the revenue authorities. However, from the records it is clearly mentioned that the assessee had not filed any submissions in response to the notices issued by the revenue authorities. But the fact remains that the alleged documents so claimed by the assessee have not been verified and the present dispute relates to A.Y 2012-13 and the first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act were issued upon the assessee on 19.09.2013 and ultimately the order was passed by the AO on 27.03.2015. However, assessee could not placed on record any substantive evidence to show that as to when the documents being relied upon by the assessee were submitted. Therefore while restoring the matter back to the file of AO imposes a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee for not properly assisting and participating in the proceedings before the revenue authorities. The said amount shall be deposited in the ‘Prime Minister Relief Fund’ and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The AO is directed to pass afresh order after considering the documents filed by the assessee.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 03/07/2025 KRK, Sr. PS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई