Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147 due to cash deposits and later revised by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 for alleged violations of Section 40A(3) regarding cash purchases. This led to substantial additions, which the assessee challenged, arguing the revisionary order itself was invalid as the issue for revision differed from the original reopening, and for some years, issues related to Section 40A(3) and Section 68 were confirmed by CIT(A) without in-depth verification.
Held
The Tribunal held that for ITA Nos. 521-526, the revisionary order under Section 263 and subsequent assessment were invalid because the basis for revision (Section 40A(3) violations) was different from the initial reopening (cash deposits under Section 147), and the limitation for revising the original assessment had expired. For ITA Nos. 1094, 527, and 918, the issues related to Section 40A(3) and Section 68 additions were restored to the AO for de-novo examination as previous authorities did not conduct thorough verification of facts.
Key Issues
1. Validity of revisionary proceedings under Section 263 when the issue for revision differs from the original reopening of assessment. 2. Adequacy of verification by lower authorities regarding disallowances under Section 40A(3) and additions under Section 68.
Sections Cited
263, 147, 148, 143(3), 143(1), 40A(3), 68, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM
These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.01.2024, 16.01.2024,14.03.2024 and , 24.02.2024 for the AY 2008-09 to 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21.
The facts and circumstances in to 526/KOL/2024, are factually identical, hence, for the sake of convenience, we first take and decide the issue.
1. For that the assessment in pursuance of the order u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law in view of the fact that the order passed u/s 263 of the Act revising and setting aside the order u/s 143(3)/ 147 itself was bad in law.
The ld. Counsel at the outset submitted that the legal issue raised goes to the root of the matter and could not be taken earlier due to inadvertence. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that all the facts qua the said ground are available on record and no further verification of facts is required to be made from many quarters whatsoever. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore submitted that the same may be admitted for adjudication for relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal).
The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not taken this legal issue before either of the authorities below and this ground is being raised for the first time before this forum, therefore, at this stage it would be unfair to admit the same for adjudication. However, requested the bench to restore the same to either of the authorities below so that the same could be decided.
A.Y.2015-16 015. The only issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition by ld. CIT (A) of ₹1,07,37,641/- in respect of violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act for purchase of coal and bricks and ₹1,90,55,783/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act in respect of labour charges.
16. It was claimed before us that the ld. AO has wrongly made the addition by mis-appreciating the facts on record as the single payment was not exceeding ₹20,000/- in respect of purchase of coal as well as purchase of bricks for which the assessee placed before us the copies of Bricks purchase and Coal purchase during the year. We find that 19. We note that the ld. AO has made an addition in respect of disallowance of expenses and royalty u/s 40A(3) of the Act and unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act when the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued. Similarly, the appeal was dismissed by the ld. CIT (A), when the assessee failed to explain the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT (A). In our opinion, the end of justice would be well served if the appeal is restored back to the file of the ld. AO to examine and deciding the issue denovo after taking into account the evidences and contention of the assessee. Accordingly we restore the appeal to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the same de-novo after allowing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee in to 526/Kol/2024 for A.Y.2008-09 to 2013-14 are allowed while appeals Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2025.