COXWELL DOMES ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1674/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2021AY 2014-155 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence provided by the assessee. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to produce necessary details.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated a loan of Rs 5,00,000 as unexplained cash credit. The assessee could not provide confirmation from one lender due to strained relations and an application for additional evidence was rejected by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence and confirming the addition of the loan amount as unexplained cash credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI SANJAY GARG

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 06.10.2021

ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member :

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.12.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to ‘CIT(A)’) for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in treating the loan of Rs 5,00,000/- taken by appellant as unexplained cash credit.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellants application for admissions of additional evidence.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving adverse finding with respect to creditworthiness of the lender of loan of Rs 5,00,000/- when complete details were filed. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving adverse finding in respect of creditworthiness of lender of sum of Rs 5,00,000/- without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

5. That the above grounds are mutually exclusive and are without prejudice to each other.” 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee during the year had taken certain loans from some parties. On being asked to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors, the necessary details and confirmations were provided to the Assessing Officer except in case of one party namely Ms.

Sunita Goyal. The Assessing Officer, therefore, confirmed the addition of Rs.5 lakhs as unexplained income of the assessee.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further submitted that in appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A), it was explained that due to some strained relation with the creditor, the assessee could not produce the confirmation from the said party. The Ld. Counsel had further invited our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the assessee had moved an application for additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the application of the assessee. He has further submitted that the transaction as in question was done through banking channel. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to properly present his case and furnish the necessary details in respect of the above transaction.

3.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submission and gone through the record. The assessee in this case has duly explained before the Ld. CIT(A) that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not produce confirmation, etc. in case of one party relating to the loan amount of Rs.5 Lakh only. He had furnished the necessary details before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the application for additional evidence moved by the assessee. In our view, when the assessee had explained the reasons, for which the assessee could not produce the requisite confirmation, etc. before the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) was supposed to consider the details and evidences so furnished by the assessee before him. The powers of the Ld. CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and as such a duty is cast upon the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the evidence which goes to the root of the case. In view of this, impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not sustainable and set-aside the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give opportunity to the assessee to produce necessary details, confirmation, etc before him and after considering the evidences so furnished by the assessee to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 07/10/2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →