Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO), confirmed by the CIT(A), which represented the difference between the cost of a flat purchased by the assessee and his wife and a loan taken from LIC for the same. The assessee claimed all payments were made by cheque and documented, while the Revenue argued non-appearance and failure to prove transactions by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the addition was made due to the non-production of evidence by the assessee before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO, confirmed by the CIT(A), regarding the difference between the cost of a flat and an LIC loan was justified, particularly in light of the assessee's failure to produce evidence before the lower authorities.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A), NFAC in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074338656(1) vide order dated 11.03.2025 for A.Y. 2015-16.
Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee is also appeared in person. Shri Shankar Naskar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the only issue in assessee's appeal was against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO representing the difference between the costs of the flat purchased by the assessee and his wife and the loan taken by the assessee from the LIC for the purchase of the same. It was the submission that all payments have been made through cheque. Ld. AR drew my attention to page 36 of the paper book which is a break-up of the payments made. The ld. AR also drew my attention to the bank pass book to submit that the payments have been made through bank. It was further submitted that the assessee's wife has also filed her return of income disclosing her share in the purchase of flat. It was the submission that the additions were not called for in the hands of the assessee.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. AO nor the assessee's wife when the notices were served. It was the submission that the assessee has not proved the transactions. It was further submitted that the AO has categorically mentioned that cash has been introduced in the book of the assessee before the cheques were issued. He vehemently supported the orders of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A).
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order page 5 clearly shows that the AO has given four reasons for making the addition. The reasons are basically that the evidences have not been produced before the AO. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) also clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the ld. AO on account of non-production of the evidence before the AO. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO in the readjudication proceedings positively.