Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was for ₹75,90,000/- representing loans shown from Mrs. Sujatha M and M/s Sri Sannidhi Developers, which the AO treated as unexplained cash credits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that additional documents supporting the loan from Mrs. Sujatha M were filed and crucial for the issue. Considering the need for fresh examination, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit evidence and the AO to consider it.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit, and if additional evidence filed by the assessee should be admitted for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19.
The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹75,90,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act.
During the assessment, the AO noticed that the assessee had shown loans in the names of (i) Mrs. Sujatha M (₹70,90,000) and (ii) M/s Sri Sannidhi Developers (₹5,00,000). The AO was not satisfied with the genuineness of these loans. He, accordingly, treated the total sum as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and added it to the income. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. Being aggrieved by the order of learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.
The learned AR drew our attention to pages 60–149 of the paper book. These pages contain the income-tax return, confirmation, and supporting details in respect of the loan from Mrs. Sujatha M. The ld. AR submitted that these are third-party documents, which took time to collect, and therefore could not be filed before the authorities below. An application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, was filed for admission of these documents. The AR prayed that the matter be set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.
The learned DR did not object if the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh consideration as per law.
We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filed additional documents relating to the loan taken from Mrs. Sujatha M. These documents are crucial for deciding the issue. Therefore, in the .
Page 3 of 4 interest of justice, the same need to be admitted and examined by the AO.
6.1 However, we note that no information has been furnished with respect to the loan from M/s Sri Sannidhi Developers. The assessee also did not provide any detail before the learned CIT(A). Further, the ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on this aspect.
6.2 In these circumstances, and considering the additional documents filed now, we are of the view that the matter requires fresh examination. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The AO shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and consider the additional evidence. The assessee is also directed to cooperate fully and file all necessary details and avoid unwarranted adjournment. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.