Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the business of a contractor in real estate, is in appeal against the CIT(A)'s consolidated order for assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20, which partly allowed the assessee's appeals. A search and seizure action was conducted on August 16, 2018, leading to additions by the AO for AY 2017-18, which were partly deleted by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that some additions confirmed by the CIT(A) were for want of bills or evidence, and there were concerns about the assessee not being given adequate opportunity to explain. The Tribunal also noted that some issues were not adjudicated by the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were justified, considering the evidence on record and the opportunity provided to the assessee.
Sections Cited
153A, 69C, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President
These appeals are filed by Shri Suraj Alwandi (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji [ld. CIT(A)] dated
26.7.2024 wherein as per the consolidated order for all these 3 years, the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed.
Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us for all these three years.
The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual carrying on business of contractor into the business of real estate. He is also partner in two firms as well as Proprietor of one concern. He filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 7.11.2017 at a total income of Rs.20,11,460.
A search & seizure action took place on 16.8.2018 and notice u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was issued to the assessee against which the same return was reiterated. For AY 2017-18 the ld. AO in all made addition of Rs.35,05,117 consisting of 5 items such as disallowance of sundry creditors, disallowance of depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved with that, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs.18,21,904 and sustained the balance addition. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing before us, the ld. AR submitted that assessee has contested before the ld. CIT(A) that there are no incriminating evidence found during the course of search. It was submitted that as per para 8, there are two small additions which are made by the AO wherein the assessee could not produce any evidence
due to short time and therefore the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. It was submitted that for AY 2017-18 addition of Rs.13,83,213 and Rs. 3 lakhs were confirmed as per para 11. For AY 2018-19 a sum of RS.11,75,000 and for AY 2019-20 addition as stated in para 8 were confirmed. It was further stated that there is a difference in Form 26AS and the contract work shown in the books of account amounting to Rs.6,94056 which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of hearing. It was further stated that the assessee also did not get proper opportunity of hearing before the ld. AO. Therefore it was submitted that proper opportunity may be granted to the asse of explaining these small additions.
The ld. CIT(DR) also objected and submits that assessee has been given enough opportunities. He submits that despite the opportunities, assessee did not produce cogent evidence/ bills/ confirmations etc.
The ld. AR submits that the assessee has now collected all the evidence to the extent possible and would like to submit. However an application for admission of additional evidences are not filed.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We find that the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of bill, etc. is out of depreciation amounting to Rs.8,535, negative cash balance of Rs.59,678 and further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of projects of the assessee for want of evidences.
Further, for AY 2018-19 addition of Rs.75,000 u/s. 68 and Rs.11 lakhs on account of cash credit assessee submits that addition of Rs.75,000 as per para 6.12 of the assessment order, the amount was withdrawn from ICICI Bank of Rs.1 lakh. However, the AO did not give credit for the same and made an addition. With respect to addition of Rs. 11 lakhs, the assessee has received Rs.10 lakhs from Fed Fast Plus and rent deposit from K K Agency for which assessee could not file confirmation. Naturally if the assessee are filled the above addition deserves to be deleted. Therefore, assessee is directed to submit the confirmation. This is also for the reason that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the fact which was submitted before us that confirmations were filed before him. It is stated that same was brushed aside without referring to.
Further, for AY 2019-20, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the addition of Rs.7,71,485 which was made by the AO vide para 11.1 of the assessment order. The assessee has submitted a chart which clearly shows that some of the issues were not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and in some of the cases the additions are confirmed for want of evidence, whereas the claim of the assessee is that in some of the grounds adequate evidences available to the extent were already filed before the ld. lower authorities.
Because of these facts, as the additions are small, we find it appropriate to send all the 3 appeals of the assessee back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to substantiate that additions deserve to be deleted. The ld. AO may consider the explanation of the assessee and then decide the issues afresh.
In view of the above facts, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.
Pronounced in the open court on this 09th day of January, 2026.