Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an income return which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made additions for unsecured loans and agricultural income treated as unexplained money. The CIT(A) confirmed some of these additions after remand reports.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT circular. For the assessee's appeal, additional documents were filed before the Tribunal, leading the Tribunal to set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification.
Key Issues
Whether additional evidence filed before the Tribunal can be admitted and whether the matter should be set aside to the Assessing Officer for verification of the same.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR
Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dy. Commissioner of Dharmesh Kalidas Patel, Vs Income-tax, 8/A, Sankalp Apartment, Central Circle 1(1), Opp. Shraddha Petrol Pump, Ahmedabad Judges Bungalow Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad- 380054 [PAN: AAYPP 0258 P] अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Thakker, CA Revenue by : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These cross-appeals are filed by the assessee and the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], arising out of the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.
& 289/Ahd/2021 Dharmesh Kalidas Patel Vs. DCIT (Cross) AY : 2017-18 2 – Department’s appeal
At the outset, Ld. Sr. DR, appearing for the Revenue, submitted that as per Form No.36, clause No.10, the tax effect in this appeal is Rs.55,46,468/- which is below Rs.60 lakhs as prescribed under the new CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Following the same, the appeal filed by the Department is liable to be dismissed. Recording the same, the Department’s appeal in is hereby dismissed.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property business, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed his original return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.50,810/- for the year under consideration. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer made addition on account of unsecured loans totaling to Rs.1,77,35,750/- from various parties on the ground that the assessee failed to provide the details of the creditors viz. names, address, PAN and ITR details. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.20,42,336/- being the agricultural income, considering it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and demanded taxes thereon.
On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), major cash creditors’ accounts, except in the case of Krunal A. Vyas (Rs.1,50,000/-), Kalpesh R. Patel (Rs.10,00,000/-) and Sonal K. Patel (Rs.12,70,640/-), were confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) after getting two remand reports from the Assessing Officer.
& 289/Ahd/2021 Dharmesh Kalidas Patel Vs. DCIT (Cross) AY : 2017-18 3 5. Aggrieved against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. Both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad erred in law and fact in making addition of Rs.1,77,35,750/- and CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad is confirming the addition of Rs.24,20,640/- in case of three persons being the cash credit u/s 68 o the IT Act, without properly considering the details of cash creditors submitted to them. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”
During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a paper-book relating to three unsecured creditors wherein bank statements and ITR acknowledgements are filed for the first time before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel pleaded that the above crucial documents could not be produced before the Assessing Officer, since the creditors were not readily available to produce the above documents. Therefore, invoking Rule 29 of Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought permission to entertain the additional evidences filed by the assessee.
Ld. Sr. DR has no objection in entertaining the new additional documents; however, pleaded that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the same.
We have given out thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record, including the additional documents filed by the assessee. Since the additional documents are filed for the first time before the Tribunal, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to consider the same and make assessment in accordance with law. The assessee also submitted before us that the major portion of loans have already been & 289/Ahd/2021 Dharmesh Kalidas Patel Vs. DCIT (Cross) AY : 2017-18 4 repaid by the assessee. Therefore, it is open for the Assessing Officer to verify the same and pass order in accordance with law. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.01.2025 at Ahmedabad.