M/S. ERODE ANNAI SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2163/CHNY/2013Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 December 2015AY 2008-097 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not specifically challenge the addition on merit before the CIT(Appeals), the appeal proceedings should allow for a merit-based adjudication. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹20 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(Appeals) focused on adjusting this amount against unabsorbed depreciation, rather than challenging the addition itself. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of unexplained cash credit without adjudicating on its merit, and whether the assessee's ground of appeal was properly understood.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT
Hearing: 06.10.2015Pronounced: 18.12.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.2163/Mds/2013
ITA No.2181/Mds/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeals against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Coimbatore dated 23.09.2013 and pertain to assessment year 2008-09. Therefore, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

2.

Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee challenged an addition of `20 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') before the CIT(Appeals). However, the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee has not contended the addition of `20 lakhs as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, he confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Referring to the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(Appeals), the Ld.counsel submitted that vide ground No.3, the addition of `20 lakhs was challenged before the CIT(Appeals).

Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is expected to dispose of the ground of appeal on merit.

3. On the contrary, Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that no specific ground was raised with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act to the extent of `20 lakhs. Ground No.3 raised before the CIT(Appeals) is only in respect of adjustment of cash credit of `20 lakhs against the unabsorbed depreciation of previous years.

By raising this ground, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee admitted that `20 lakhs is the unexplained cash credit which needs to be set off against unabsorbed depreciation. That is why, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) found that the assessee has not contested the issue of addition of `20 lakhs before him.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer made the addition of `20 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee has raised following ground before the CIT(Appeals) as Ground No.3:-

“3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in the income computation in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where an amount of `20,00,000/- treated as unexplained cash credits were not adjusted against the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years.”

A bare reading of this ground shows that the assessee is aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer refusing to adjust the unexplained cash credit of `20 lakhs with unabsorbed depreciation of the previous years. As rightly submitted by the Ld. D.R., no specific ground was raised challenging the merit of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act.

Therefore, this Tribunal cannot blame the CIT(Appeals) for observing that the assessee has not contended the addition of `20 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act.

5.

However, it is to be mentioned that the assessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer is to compute the correct taxable income. The appeal is nothing but continuation of assessment proceeding. Even though the assessee has not raised any specific ground with regard to addition of `20 lakhs under Section 68 of the Act, the appeal before this Tribunal is only in respect of the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act to the extent of `20 lakhs. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the ground raised by the assessee before this Tribunal needs to be adjudicated on merit. In other words, the first Appellate Authority has to adjudicate the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act on merit.

Remitting the matter to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to consider the issue of unexplained cash credit of `20 lakhs on merit would not prejudice the interest of Revenue in any way. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain merit of the matter before the CIT(Appeals) would promote the cause of justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the issue of addition of `20 lakhs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, is remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall reconsider the issue on merit and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

Now coming to Revenue’s appeal, the only issue arises for consideration is with regard to direction of the CIT(Appeals) to set off the unabsorbed depreciation against the income assessed as income from undisclosed source under Section 68 of the Act.

7.

Since the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act is remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) in the early part of this order, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the claim of the assessee with regard to set off of unabsorbed depreciation also needs to be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set aside and the issue of adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation against the income from undisclosed source is also remitted back to the file of the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) shall reconsider the issue afresh and thereafter decide the same in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

8.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →