What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not provide an opportunity for explanation and was cryptic in his order. The CIT(A) also failed to examine the payment details. Therefore, the matter needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer, who must provide an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee made a payment of Rs. 1,10,012/- to Idea Cellular, which was added to his income as unexplained expenses. The assessee claimed he did not make the payment and the entry was repeated. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained expenses was justified without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and proper verification of facts.

Tarun Thapar, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2016

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 09.02.2016Pronounced: 17.02.2016

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 3/9/2015 passed by CIT (A) 9, New Delhi.

The grounds of appeal are follows:-

“1. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and is not justified in disallowing the payment to idea cellular amounting to Rs.1,10,012/-. 2. That before going ahead with the impugned addition, Ld. A.O failed to give the opportunity of being heard which is in clear violation and contravention of the principle of natural justice.

The Ld. A.O has erred in law and has not given any further time and opportunity on wrong submission mistakenly to prove our self bonafied and genuine.” 3. The assessee is a Director in T. S. Kisan. As per AIR Information, assessee made a payment of Rs.1,10,012/- and Rs.1,10,012/- on 31/3/2009 to Idea Cellular. The assessee was asked to submit the complete details of payments to the above company and source thereof. But assessee failed to submit any details except that he did not pay any amount to the above company. He also stated that the same entry was repeated. Accordingly, the assessee was show caused as to why the same should not be added in its income as unexplained expenses. The assessee could not submit any satisfactory explanation. In view of above, the above amount was added back by the A.O in the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.1, 10,012/- as unexplained expenses.

The CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

5. During the course of hearing none appeared for the Assessee, but in the interest of justice we have taken up the matter and deciding the issue on merit. It is observed that the Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity to the assessee for giving an explanation in respect of the payments made to the Idea Cellular. The Assessing Officer is also cryptic while passing the Assessment Order. The CIT (A) though has discussed various case laws did not made any attempt to look into the aspect of the payments made to the Idea Cellular by the assessee. Therefore, this matters needs to be verified before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to take on record all the relevant documents related to the said payment, needless to say the assessee be given opportunity to be heard.

In result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 17th of February 2016.

TARUN THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments