Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,08,87,530/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained unsecured loans received by the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition after considering additional evidences filed by the assessee and a remand report from the AO.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and upheld the confirmation of the addition. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to adduce any fresh material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings and also did not diligently pursue the appeal before the Tribunal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for unexplained unsecured loans was justified. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without properly considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 31.05.2018, for Assessment Year 2014-15.
The assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds:- 1. Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case the impugned order is bad and against the law as such the same is based on surmises, suspicion and conjunctures without application of judicious liable to be set aside.
(A.Y.2014-15) 2. Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A), Noida did not consider the legitimate cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Assesee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and further erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO as under: a. The Ld. CIT (A) did not consider the cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Assessee; b. The Ld. CIT(A) pleased to follow the foot steps of the Ld. AO and pronounced the impugned order without considering the merits of the case as the impugned order clearly transpires that the Ld. CIT (A) has only adjudicated the issue relating to admission of the Additional Evidences placed on record without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is without application of judicious mind; c. The Ld. CIT (A) further did not exercise its judicial powers to consider the legitimate and cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Asseesee despite having plenary power vis a vis Ld. AO under the law to meet the ends of justice.
Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has completely ignored the legal position and evidences such as confirmations, documents of sales of building etc. on record with regard to genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the "advances from the parties" in the balance sheet in the sum of Rs. 24,00,000.00 towards construction of building.
4. Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case a bare perusal of the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act framed by the Ld. AO transpires that the Ld. AO did not apply her judicious mind as she has added Rs. 2,84,87,530.00 stated under column "31(b)" of the Form 3CD (Audit Report) which is shown under the column "Amount of Repayment" and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO in the Impugned Order completely ignoring the legitimate cogent evidences placed on record against law.
5. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate the settled law that where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability and complexity of the assessee/appellant it should not be harassed by the Revenue's insistence that it should prove the negative.
That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit to/from the ground of the appeal at the time hearing of the appeal or at any time before that as he may be so advised.
(A.Y.2014-15) 3. This appeal was filed by the assessee in 2018. As per records available on file the appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 23.09.2021. Thereafter, the appeal was listed for hearing on 12 dates, including today. However, every time the same was adjourned either on the written request of assessee/assessee’s representative or none was present to represent the assessee. Today none appeared to represent the assessee nor any letter seeking adjournment has been received. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, we take up this appeal for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Department Representative and on the basis of documents already on record.
Shri Vivek Vardhan, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
We have heard the submissions made by ld. DR and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee is an authorized dealer of M/s Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd., and is engaged in trading of mobile sets and online recharge/recharge coupons. During the course of assessment proceedings Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has taken unsecured loans from various persons aggregating to Rs. 3,08,87,530/-. The assessee failed to explain unsecured loans, hence, the AO made addition of aforesaid amount u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).