JATAN SECURITIES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 14(2) (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1828/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 April 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the application for additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received unsecured loans of Rs. 4,30,00,000/- from its shareholders. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68, citing deficiencies in the documents provided by the assessee. The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) but it was not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting and considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee for proper adjudication of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 11/04/2022Pronounced: 11/04/2022

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ,National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 23/08/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

Dr. P.Daniel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings addition of Rs.4,30,00,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit under section. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. Admittedly during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee failed to furnish relevant documents to substantiate its contentions. The assessee company had taken unsecured loans amounting to Rs.4,30,00,000/- from its shareholders i.e:

(i) Shri Sanjeev Joshi – Rs. 1,92,50,000/- (ii) Mark Family Trust – Rs. 2,37,50,000/-. Though during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee had furnished documents to prove the source and identity of the persons from whom loans were borrowed, however, Assessing Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee by pointing minor deficiencies in the documents furnished and made addition. Aggrieved by the addition made in assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that initially proceedings before the CIT(A) were in physical mode and the assessee had furnished additional evidences to substantiate the identity of the lenders, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred to National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The assessee again furnished the additional evidences and also filed an application for admission of additional evidences. The CIT(A) without admitting additional evidences has confirmed the addition made in the assessment order. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the CIT(A) has not even mentioned about the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that these additional evidences are necessary to be taken on record for proper adjudication of the issue raised in the appeal.

3.

Shri S.N.Kabra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that in the grounds of appeal the assessee has not assailed the findings of CIT(A) in not admitting additional evidences furnished by the assessee.

4.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The addition of Rs.4,30,00,000/- has been made under section 68 of the Act in respect of unsecured loans. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee furnished certain documents viz. bank statements, return of income, computation of income, etc. of the lenders. The Assessing Officer pointed some discrepancies in the documents furnished by the assessee and confirmed the addition rejecting the documents. Thereafter, during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences along with an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. A copy of the said application dated 14/12/2016 along with online acknowledgement for filing of said application and paper books has also been placed on record. In the impugned order there is no whisper of additional evidences filed by the assessee. Though the assessee has not raised specific ground in the grounds of appeal against non-consideration of the application for the additional evidence, however, the ld.Counsel for the assessee has made oral ground in this regard. Since, the prayer made by the ld.Counsel for the assessee is purely a legal issue, hence, oral prayer made by ld.Counsel for the assessee is accepted.

Taking into consideration entirety of facts without commenting on merits of the addition, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of appeal after considering assessee’s application for filing of additional evidence under of Rule 46A. The CIT(A) shall pass fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. The impugned order is set aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 11th day of April, 2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →