Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-18. The appeal was initially barred by limitation but was condoned. The additions were made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits from HUFs.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee for proving the genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal, considering the limited scope of inquiry by the lower authorities and the need for proper adjudication, remanded the matter back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits are sustainable without proper inquiry and opportunity to the assessee? Whether additional evidence should be admitted at the appellate stage?
Sections Cited
250, 68, 143(2), 143(3), 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 26/03/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 07/06/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
At the outset the Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation by 29 days for which the assessee has filed the condonation application which is placed on record.
After considering the condonation application filed by the assessee in the present appeal, we condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication.
In the present appeal it was also noticed that the assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence in the form of written submissions with annexures, which were not produced before the lower authorities. It was submitted that this additional evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of the grounds and in the interest of justice.
The learned DR opposed the admission of additional evidence.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and are of the view that in the interest of justice, the additional evidence sought to be filed deserves to be admitted. The same is relevant and may have a bearing on the adjudication of the matter. Accordingly, the additional evidence is admitted.
Now we shall discussed the appeal wherein Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That the order of the Ld. CIT dated passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is fact, against facts and law and therefore be canceled.
2. That the Ld CIT (A) has erred is sustaining the addition Rs.12,62,186/ U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to unsecured loans in the names of Narain Dass Mehan (HUF) and Vijay Mehan (HUF) without examining the evidence placed on record and is passing a Non-Speakingorder . The addition needs to be deleted.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the Ground of appeal before the same in taken up for final disposal.
8. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed its return for AY 2017-18 on 16/12/2017, declaring an income of Rs.1,98,56,541. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices under Section 143(2) were issued on 09/08/2018. The Ld. AO completed the scrutiny under Section 143(3) on 25/12/2019, making an addition of Rs.12,62,185 under section 68 for unexplained cash credits received from Narain Dass Mehan H.U.F. amounting to Rs. 6,40,000 and from Vijay Mehan H.U.F. amounting to Rs. Rs. 6,75,000.
9. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has since dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by observing that despite several opportunities, assessee had failed to submit the ground wise submissions and also failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The appellant submitted only a letter dated 10/12/2019 with annexures, which was insufficient to prove the case of assessee .
10. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee came up in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries regarding the creditworthiness or genuineness of the transactions. It was also submitted that the addition under Section 68 was unjustified as the assessee had submitted the required documents online on 10/12/2019. Further it was stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the AO failed to provide adequate time and opportunity to substantiate the credits. Ld. AR had submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee had submitted that loans from Narain Dass Mehan H.U.F. and Vijay Mehan H.U.F. were genuine. Before us Ld. AR had filed the application for additional evidence, by virtue of which Narain Dass Mehan H.U.F had confirmed that interest was considered as income from other source while filing the return of income. It was sought to be proved that loan was returned on 26/03/2018 by the company(bank statement enclosed). Similarly the documents were filed before us to prove genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vijay Mehan H.U.F. It was prayed that these documents were not filed before the lower authority because of the reasons mentioned in the application for admitting additional documents. It was submitted that these documents may be admitted and matter may kindly be remitted back to the lower authority.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the present case, we observed that the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by merely stating, “During the course of appellate proceedings, when seven opportunities were given to the appellant, the appellant failed to upload and substantiate the grounds raised
.” After considering the findings of both the Learned AO and the Learned CIT(A), we are of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass afresh order after verifying the documents submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to submit all the required documents within the time limit provided by the Learned AO. Needless to say the above said exercise shall be carried out by the Ld. AO after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and following the principles of natural justice.
14. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2025.