Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company, IRM Private Limited, filed its return for AY 2011-12. The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3). Subsequently, the case was reopened under Section 147 based on information suggesting escaped income from its amalgamated entity, Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for professional receipts/commission, unexplained expenditure, and unexplained cash credits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned order and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the three additions and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, whether the CIT(A) order violated principles of natural justice, and the sustainability of additions made under Sections 56, 69C, and 68.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 250, 144, 143(2), 142(1), 271(1)(c), 56, 69C, 68, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 133(6), 194J, 194H
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: ] ] This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 31.07.2024 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the assessment year 2011–12, arising from the reassessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle
2 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer / AO”) under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 29.11.2018.
Facts of the Case
The facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2011–12 on 29.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 1,59,40,584/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.02.2014, wherein the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,86,71,510/- after making certain additions, including disallowance under section 14A and addition of unexplained income. Against the said additions, as stated in the form 35 under the statement of facts, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which was allowed, and the additions were deleted. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018, purportedly on the ground that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening of assessment inter alia referred to information available from the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) and NMS database indicating that the assessee, through its amalgamated entity Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. (merged into IRM Private Limited pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court), had received taxable receipts which were not reflected in its books of account or return of income. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating reassessment proceedings disclosed the following: (i) That Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. had received fees of Rs. 5,29,440/- under section 194J and commission/brokerage of Rs. 45,17,539/- under section 194H during the financial year 2010–11 relevant to A.Y. 2011– 12, aggregating to Rs. 50,46,979/-.
3 (ii) That cash expenditure exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- in a single month was recorded in the NMS data.
(iii) That information was received from ITO, Jalandhar (vide letter dated 16.03.2017 under section 133(6)) in the case of Shri Hemant Srivastava, an employee of the amalgamated company, showing that Rs. 10,12,600/- was deposited into the bank account of M/s Green Channel Private Limited from the employee’s personal account, suggesting possible unaccounted cash acceptance.
Based on the above inputs, the AO formed a belief that income to the extent of Rs. 70,59,579/- had escaped assessment and proceeded to issue notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. In response, the assessee submitted that it had already filed return of income for the relevant year and requested reasons for reopening. The reasons were duly supplied vide office letter dated 14.08.2018. Thereafter, the AO issued statutory notices under section 143(2) dated 24.08.2018 and under section 142(1) dated 17.09.2018 seeking specific details including the accounting treatment of the above receipts and cash transactions. However, the assessee did not respond to the said notices. The AO issued a show cause notice dated 25.10.2018, again calling upon the assessee to explain the transactions. In absence of compliance, further show cause notices were issued on 05.11.2018 and 13.11.2018. As there was no response or compliance from the assessee to any of these notices, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act, based on the material available on record. In the reassessment order dated 29.11.2018, the AO made the following additions to the returned income:
4 (i) Rs. 50,46,979/- under section 56 as income from other sources, being receipts of professional fees and commission attributed to Green Channel Travel Services Ltd., which had amalgamated with the assessee;
(ii) Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69C, treating the same as unexplained expenditure in cash incurred during a month as reflected in NMS; and (iii) Rs. 10,12,600/- under section 68, being unexplained cash credits received through an employee’s bank account into the company account, as per report from ITO Jalandhar.
Accordingly, the AO determined total assessed income at Rs. 2,14,81,080/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Being not satisfied with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) raising multiple grounds, including challenge to the validity of reassessment proceedings, denial of natural justice, and the merits of the three additions. The assessee also filed written submissions and contended, inter alia, that the reopening was time-barred and initiated without jurisdiction, as the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, the alleged transactions related to Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. and not to the assessee directly and the additions were made without any independent inquiry or corroborative evidence and without affording an effective opportunity of being heard.
In the appellate order the CIT(A) rejected all contentions raised by the assessee. It held that since Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. had amalgamated with the assessee pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the 5 liability to account for its income vested in the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that no return of income was filed by the amalgamated entity for A.Y. 2011–12 and that receipts reflected in ITS/NMS justified reopening. It further held that the assessee failed to furnish any explanation during appellate proceedings as well and, hence, confirmed the additions made by the AO.
7. The CIT(A) also dismissed the grounds relating to violation of principles of natural justice, observing that multiple opportunities were provided to the assessee, including hearing notices dated 25.12.2020, 09.12.2022, 13.04.2023, and up to 19.07.2024, but no valid explanation or supporting evidence was furnished. The levy of interest under sections 234A to 234D was treated as consequential and upheld. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was held to be a preliminary step and not subject to appellate adjudication at this stage. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee is in further appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, appellate order dated 31 July 2024 ("Order") passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi ("NFAC") under section 250 of the IT Act is contrary to the facts and the law and, therefore, not tenable in law.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer ("Ld. AO") in initiating reassessment proceedings vide issuance of reopening notice dated 31 March 2018 under section 148 of the IT Act and passing of consequential assessment order dated 29 November 2018 under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that they are bad in law and, therefore, not tenable in law.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in initiating reassessment proceedings vide issuance of reopening notice dated 31 March 2018 under section 148 of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that it was issued beyond a period of four years and accordingly was time barred in terms of first proviso to section 147 of the IT Act.
6 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not considering the detailed written submissions and additional evidences furnished by the Appellant from time to time and accordingly impugned Order is violative of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not granting personal hearing to the Appellant despite repeated requests made by the Appellant and accordingly impugned Order is violative of principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of INR 50,46,979/- as income from other sources under section 56 of the IT Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of IN 10,00,000/- on account of alleged 'unexplained expenditure' under section 69C of the IT Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making an addition of INR 10,12,600/- on account of alleged unexplained cash credits' under section 68 of the IT Act.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D of the IT Act.
10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not quashing the action of the Ld. AO of initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal
before or at the time of hearing.
8. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) appeared on behalf of the assessee contended that orders of lower authorities suffer from serious factual and legal infirmities. The AR reiterated the facts and pointed out that the Green Channel Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the assessee company as per the order passed on 27-11-2002 by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and the same facts was communicated to the lower authorities
7 along with the copy of order. The AR also pointed out that the assessee also wrote al letter to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Ahmedabad on 21-08-2017 requesting to de-activate the PAN of Green Travel Services Pvt. Ltd.
It was submitted that the alleged receipts of Rs. 50,46,979/– from various parties were duly accounted for in the books of the assessee and reflected as revenue income. The AR referred to PB Pg 28, 35, 40, 45, 53, 58, 59, 60, and 78 in support of this submission. It was also pointed out that these receipts were subject to TDS, and deduction of tax at source was reflected in the TDS certificates and corresponding books of account (PB Pg 11 and Table at PB Pg 152). The AR emphasised that for AYs 2010–11 and 2012–13, similar reopening on identical grounds was dropped by the Department after due verification (PB Pg 13 and 168– 169), and hence, the same reasoning ought to apply for the relevant assessment year.
The AR submitted that the cash expenditure flagged in the NMS system was not supported by any specific document or transaction relatable to the assessee or the merged entity. The information was not made available to the assessee in a usable format, preventing it from furnishing a full and proper response. He further submitted that the foreign exchange transactions were carried out by the assessee in the ordinary course of business, and the cash payments were well within the RBI’s permissible norms. In particular, the AR referred to RBI license and authorisations (PB Pg 153–156) and RBI Circulars permitting foreign exchange sales against cash up to USD 1000 per transaction (PB Pg 157–161). Supporting documents and details of foreign exchange purchases were also placed on record (PB Pg 17–18), and it was submitted that these transactions were carried out in accordance with law and are duly recorded.
8 11. As regards the cash deposit routed through the bank account of employee Shri Hemant Srivastava, the AR explained that the transaction pertained to collection of foreign exchange from customers as part of the travel business. Detailed explanation regarding the accounting treatment and taxability of the said amount was submitted before the lower authorities (PB Pg 19, 19B, 164), along with business justifications and related entries. It was urged that the receipt was a part of gross business turnover and not an unexplained credit.
The AR forcefully contended that the entire reassessment was completed without affording adequate and effective opportunity to the assessee. Notices were issued to the old address of the assessee (IRM House), while the actual administrative and compliance work was being handled from its Bhat Office (PB Pg 10–11). Despite filing numerous submissions, the CIT(A) failed to consider or even refer to the same in its order. Para 6.8 of the CIT(A) order, which deals with the additions, summarily confirms the order of the AO without examination of the evidentiary submissions, thereby rendering the appellate order violative of principles of natural justice. It was therefore prayed that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in the interest of justice.
The learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, relied upon the assessment order passed by the lower authorities. The DR submitted that the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction under section 147, based on specific information received through various sources, including the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS), NMS database. The DR emphasised that in view of such tangible material coming into the possession of the AO post original assessment, reopening of the assessment could not be faulted either in law or on facts. The DR argued that when the AO is in possession of material suggesting
9 possible escapement of income, it is not only within the AO's power but also within his duty to verify and bring such income to tax. However, the DR fairly conceded that in the present case, the assessee had placed on record voluminous documentation before the CIT(A), including explanations and details relating to the alleged receipts, cash expenses, and credit entries. The CIT(A), while upholding the additions, had not discussed the assessee’s submissions in adequate detail and appeared to have summarily confirmed the assessment order. In particular, the DR acknowledged that certain contentions raised by the assessee such as availability of TDS credits against the receipts of Rs. 50.46 lakhs, accounting treatment in the books, and explanations regarding transactions through employee accounts require proper factual verification at the end of the AO. Since the CIT(A) has not rendered findings on merits of such evidences, the DR raised no objection in remanding the matter back to the file of the AO for de novo consideration.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both parties, perused the material available on record including the assessment order passed, the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) and the paper book filed by the assessee. The contentions of the learned AR and the learned DR have been duly considered. The appeal raises multiple grounds relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings, violation of natural justice, and sustainability of additions made under sections 56, 69C, and 68 of the Act.
Ground Nos. 1 to 3 – Validity of Reassessment Proceedings 15. The assessee has challenged the reassessment initiated by the AO by issuance of notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2018 on two principal grounds: (i) that there was no tangible material to justify reopening, and (ii) that the reassessment was time-barred as per the first proviso to section 147. From the 10 record, it is evident that the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 28.02.2014 determining income at Rs. 1.86 crores. The reopening was initiated on 31.03.2018—after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year—on the basis of information sourced from the ITS system, NMS software, and a report from the ITO, Jalandhar under section 133(6). These inputs suggested that Green Channel Travel Services Ltd., which had merged into the assessee company pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on 27.11.2002, had received certain income aggregating to Rs. 50.46 lakhs, incurred cash expenses exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs and had been the recipient of Rs. 10.12 lakhs through deposits made by an employee. The assessee contended that there was no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and hence the first proviso to section 147 would bar reopening. However, the record reflects that Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. had not filed a return of income for A.Y. 2011–12 and the receipts flagged in the ITS database were not verifiably disclosed in the original return or the financial statements. Since the assessee was the successor/amalgamated entity, the obligation to account for such income in its return or to disclose the relevant transactions cannot be disputed. We find that the AO had recorded specific reasons, which were communicated to the assessee on 14.08.2018, and the reopening was not based on mere change of opinion. In such a case, where the original assessment is silent on the relevant income and new facts come to light post-assessment, reopening after four years is permissible under law. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 and uphold the validity of reassessment. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed.
Ground Nos. 4 and 5 – Violation of Natural Justice 16. The assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that it failed to consider the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee and 11 denied it the opportunity of personal hearing despite repeated requests. It was also submitted that the assessment was completed ex-parte due to service of notices at IRM House, whereas the administrative office was functioning from Bhat, as recorded on PB Pg 10–11. We note that the assessment was framed under section 144 due to non-compliance with statutory notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1). Thereafter, in appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued several hearing notices, and the assessee did file written submissions. However, on perusal of the appellate order, particularly paragraph 6.8, we find that the CIT(A) has confirmed all three additions summarily, without rendering any reasoned finding on the assessee’s explanations, evidences, or accounting records. In our considered view, while the CIT(A) has the discretion to decide appeals on merits without oral hearing, the mandate under section 250(6) obliges the appellate authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The failure to consider submissions despite voluminous material filed constitutes a serious procedural irregularity. We also note that the CIT(A) did not independently verify or call for a remand report on key factual issues. Accordingly, we hold that the principles of natural justice were violated in the appellate proceedings and Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are allowed.
Ground Nos. 6 to 8 – Additions under Sections 56, 69C, and 68 17. On merits, the assessee has challenged three additions. Insofar as the addition of Rs. 50,46,979/- made under section 56 of the Act is concerned, the assessee has submitted that the said amount represented professional receipts and commission income duly accounted for in the books of account and reflected in its audited financial statements. The receipts were supported by entries at various places in the financials and ledger extracts, with specific reference to pages 28, 35, 40, 45, 53, 58, 59, 60, and 78 of the paper book. It was further contended that tax was deducted at source on these receipts, and corresponding TDS credits were available to the assessee, which substantiates the nature and disclosure of the 12 income. The assessee also brought to our attention that in the assessments for A.Ys. 2010–11 and 2012–13, where similar issues had arisen, the Department had subsequently dropped the proceedings after being satisfied with the explanations offered (PB Pg 168–169). Despite these submissions and evidences having been placed before the lower authorities, we find that the CIT(A) has not dealt with them at all in its appellate order. There is no examination of the assessee’s claim regarding inclusion of such receipts in the books, nor any observation on the availability or utilization of TDS credit. The addition appears to have been sustained summarily without independent verification or reasoning.
As regards the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69C of the Act, the same has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of an alert generated through NMS software indicating that Green Channel Travel Services Ltd. (amalgamated with the assessee) had incurred cash expenditure exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs during a month in the relevant financial year. The assessee, in rebuttal, submitted that such expenditure pertained to foreign exchange transactions executed in the ordinary course of its travel and currency business. It was submitted that such cash payments were duly authorized under applicable RBI guidelines, and the assessee was licensed as an Authorised Money Changer (AMC) permitted to undertake cash-based forex sales up to specified limits. In support, reliance was placed on documentary evidences at PB Pg 17–18 and circulars and authorisations issued by the Reserve Bank of India, compiled at PB Pg 153–161. Despite the same being placed on record, there is no reference or discussion in the appellate order on this aspect. The CIT(A) has neither verified the nature of the transactions nor examined whether the alleged cash expenditure was backed by regulatory permissions or recorded in the regular course of business.
13 19. With respect to the addition of Rs. 10,12,600/- under section 68 of the Act, the same pertains to cash deposits routed through the bank account of one Shri Hemant Srivastava, an employee of Green Channel Travel Services Ltd., into the account of the company. The Department alleged that these were unaccounted receipts. The assessee, however, submitted that the said sum represented collections from customers against foreign exchange or tour services, and that the employee in question was entrusted with the task of temporarily receiving payments on behalf of the company. It was further explained that the receipts were duly recorded in the gross revenue of the assessee, forming part of its declared turnover, and the underlying documentation and bank statements evidencing the trail were placed at PB Pg 19, 164, and 198. However, the Assessing Officer did not issue any summons or conduct any verification in this regard, and the CIT(A) also omitted to consider the explanations and documents placed before it. As a result, the addition has been confirmed without any specific finding on whether the transaction was, in fact, unexplained or whether it formed part of the assessee’s declared business income.
In view of the above, and considering the absence of findings by the lower authorities on the detailed factual submissions made by the assessee, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after verifying the evidences, books of account, TDS records, and RBI-compliant transaction details, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Upon perusal of the assessment and appellate orders, it is evident that none of these submissions have been dealt with by the lower authorities. The CIT(A) has mechanically confirmed the additions without examination of books of account, TDS certificates, RBI circulars, or bank statements. The DR has also 14 conceded that factual verification is warranted in light of the material filed by the assessee.
In such circumstances and keeping in mind the principles of equity and fair play, we are of the view that all three additions need to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer afresh, after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. Ground Nos. 6 to 8 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Ground No. 9, relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, and 234D, is consequential and shall be recomputed in accordance with the final assessed income. Ground No. 10, challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), is premature in the absence of a penalty order and is therefore dismissed. Ground No. 11 being general in nature requires no separate adjudication.
In the result the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th June, 2025 at Ahmedabad.