Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA
O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Karnal (hereinafter referred as “learned First Appellate Authority” or in short “FAA”) in Appeal no. IT/93/E/KNL/2018-19, for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of the penalty order dated 21.06.2018 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”).
Heard and perused the record.
None has appeared for the assessee. The notices issued are received back with the report that there is no such company at the given address. Arguments of learned DR were heard, who supported the findings of learned tax authorities below.
It can be appreciated that assessee has raised a question of fact that learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A. It can be observed that in para 3.1 while reproducing the submissions of AR in sub-para 5, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned of the fact that copy of Audited Annual Accounts of the depositor company Uttam Wollen Pvt. Ltd. And copy of bank accounts were filed along with application under Rule 46A.
However, without making any comment on the additional evidence, the learned CIT(Appeals) has observed that “3.2 Findings I have examined the facts of the case and the submissions made by the assessee. In the case of the appellant, an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- had been made after the assessee could not prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of unsecured loan said to have been raised from M/s Uttam Woolens Pvt. Ltd. The assessee in fact, surrendered the said amount at that stage. The appellant has sought to state that the details of unsecured loan with copies of bank account PAN and proof of ITR filed was Submitted and that the identity, capacity to make the transaction and genuineness 'of the transaction was proved. However, it may be noted that mere submission of the said documents does not establish the genuineness of the said transaction nor does it have evidentiary value. If the transaction was genuine, there was no cause to surrender the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 324 has held that when the assessee offered an amount of taxation as additional income, the AO was justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In view of the said reasoning, I confirm the penalty levied in this case.”
It can be appreciated that Ld. AO has passed penalty order primarily concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars with regard to unsecured loan. The Bench is of the considered opinion that while sustaining the observation of Ld. AO, that the documents produced to establish the genuineness of loan does not establish genuineness of such transaction and they did not have evidentiary value, the learned CIT(Appeal) has fallen in error in not giving any finding with regard additional evidence which is material to examine the question of fact that if there was failure on the part of assessee to furnish accurate particulars In the light of same, the issue is restored to the file of learned CIT(Appeals) to consider the additional evidence of assessee and then give a finding on merit. An opportuinty of hearing on additional evidence be also given to the assessee. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 04.05.2023.