Loading judgment…

VAMA INFRA,SURAT vs ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT | BharatTax

VAMA INFRA,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT

ITA 184/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 July 2025AY 2017-184 pages

AI SummaryN/A

Facts

During assessment, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 10,75,933/- as unexplained credits under Section 68 and disallowed Rs. 3,00,197/- as unexplained expenses under Section 69, due to the assessee's failure to provide supporting evidence for unsecured loans and expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed these additions, prompting the assessee to appeal, arguing that the loans were from previous assessment years and challenging the ad-hoc expense disallowance.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) denied the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing, rejected additional evidence submission under Rule 46A, and refused a remand report. Concluding that principles of natural justice were violated, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, allowing the assessee to place supporting evidence on record.

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) erred in denying the assessee an opportunity to present additional evidence and refusing a remand report, thus violating principles of natural justice; Whether the additions under Section 68 (unexplained credits from prior years) and Section 69C (ad-hoc expense disallowance) were justified.

Sections Cited

Section 68, Section 69C, Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 18.07.2025

O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A), Mysore vide order dated 18.12.2024 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the additional evidences filed during appellate proceedings.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 10,75,933/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act although the loans were not even borrowed during the year under consideration.

Vama Infra vs. ACIT Asst. Year – 2017-18 - 2– 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 3,00,197/- as unexplained expenses u/s 69C of the I.T. Act.

4. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted.

5.

Vama Infra vs. ACIT Asst. Year – 2017-18 - 3– 5. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order has been passed by Ld. CIT(A) in violation of principle of natural justice. The Counsel for the assesee drew our attention to written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A), in which a specific request was made for admission of additional evidence. However, this request for submission of additional evidence was denied to the assessee on the ground that the assessee did not submit the documents as per the Rules prescribed in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had also made a specific request for remanding his submissions to the Assessing Officer for his comments, but again Ld. CIT(A) refused to call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer in respect of additional evidence sought to the submitted by the assessee, in support of it’s case. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the basic fact regarding the case of the assessee that the unsecured loans in question had not been taken by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration, but such loans had been taken by the assessee in previous assessment years. Therefore, there is no question of invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, looking into the assessee’s set of facts. The assessee wanted to place on record necessary documentation and supporting evidences to show that these unsecured loans were not taken by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration, but this opportunity was denied to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A). Further, with regard to addition of Rs. 3,00,197/- the assessee submitted that this was on account of ad-hoc disallowance @ 5% of total expenses of Rs. 60,03,932/- and there was no basis to confirm such ad-hoc Vama Infra vs. ACIT Asst. Year – 2017-18 - 4– disallowance in the hands of the assessee, without pointing out to any infirmity in the books of accounts of the assessee which were duly audited. Accordingly, the Counsel for the asessee submitted that this is not a fit case for confirming any addition in the hands of the assessee, looking into the assessee’s particular set of facts.