DCIT vs. M/S BHARATH HI- TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,,

These appeals are preferred by the assessee as well as the revenue against the respective order of the CIT(Appeals).

In the assessee’s appeals, the assessee has raised an additional ground that the assessment order passed u/s. 153A of the I.T. Act is bad in law as the assessment was not pending at the time of search and there is no nexus between the additions made and any information and material found during the course of search. Through the additional ground, the assessee has also challenged the addition made u/s. 68C of the Act in respect of advances received for sale of sites.

During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has opted not to press the additional grounds. Accordingly, the additional grounds are not admitted being not pressed.

So far as the issues on merits are concerned, we find that the AO has made the additions u/s. 68C of the Act having noted that the assessee has introduced the credit liabilities in the form of advances received from various clients/customers.

Against the additions, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(Appeals) and before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee has filed the confirmations of the creditors. The CIT(A) has called a remand report thereon and being partly convinced with the submissions of the assessee, had deleted the additions.

Aggrieved with the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee and the revenue preferred appeals before the Tribunal assailing the order of CIT(Appeals).

On a careful perusal of the order of the authorities, we find that before the AO, the assessee did not file the requisite information sought by the AO and the AO has made the addition of the advance received having invoked the provisions of section 68C of the Act. But before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the confirmation letters and the affidavits of the persons who have given the advances. The CIT(A) called a remand report from the AO and consequently the AO has filed three remand reports. Though in the remand report, the AO was not convinced with the details furnished by the assessee, but the CIT(A) having relied upon it, has reduced the additions, partly accepting the claim of the assessee.

During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has also filed the details of the persons who have given the alleged advances to the assessee with the submission that these persons were not available at the given addresses, moreover these persons were not examined by the AO during the course of remand proceedings and in most of the cases the addresses were not complete. to 1067/Bang/2013 & 1009 to 1011/Bang/2013 Page 4 of 5 9. Having carefully examined the facts available on record, we are of the view that the assessee has not furnished the complete relevant evidence with regard to deposit of advances with the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) has not examined the issue in the light of the detailed evidence. He has simply accepted the contentions of the assessee. In the light of these facts, we are of the view that the entire issue requires fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) in all these appeals and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to readjudicate the issue afresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. If need be, the creditors may be summoned and be examined by the AO in order to verify the genuineness of the transactions. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) for all the assessment years is set aside and the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.