2013 (7) TMI 658 - HC - Income Tax

High Court allows Revenue's appeal, directs fresh assessment due to lack of evidence by Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Jeeva Raja (Died), Ilayaraja, Karthik Raja, Yuvan Shankar Raja, Bavadahrani

The High Court allowed the appeal by the Revenue, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and directing a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer. The ... Unexplained investments - Name of parties to whom money advanced not disclosed at time of assessment - Tribunal deleted holding that assessee had produced materials regarding the income tax details of the parties and their addresses - Held that:- assessee had not explained the source for making the deposits as well as the loans and liabilities and some of the parties whose names were given as owing amounts to the assessee had denied having any transaction with the assessee but only with Raja music Universal wherein the assessee was the managing partner, the mere filing of details of creditors, per se, would not be a good ground to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. If the Appellate Authority felt that on the furnishing of any fresh material, the case demanded a fresh enquiry, the Appellate Authority should have remanded the matter by directing the Assessing Officer to make enquiry on the documents filed and pass orders - Assessment to A.O. Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 69B as unexplained investments for the assessment year 2005-06.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition made under Section 69B as unexplained investments for the assessment year 2005-06. The assessee had filed her return of income admitting a total income of Rs.186, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. Scrutiny revealed discrepancies in the cash deposits and loans of the assessee, leading to the conclusion by the Assessing Officer that the sum was assessable as unexplained investment under Section 69. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later deleted the addition, stating that the assessee had explained the entries satisfactorily during the appeal process.The Revenue appealed this decision before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which noted that the assessee had agreed to the addition under pressure and mental strain. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided materials and details to support her case, which the Officer did not adequately verify. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had fully explained the entries, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and setting aside the assessment.The High Court, however, found the reasoning of the Tribunal lacking in material evidence and basis for setting aside the assessment. The Court noted that the Appellate Authorities did not sufficiently consider the evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the source of investment. Therefore, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the appeal by the Revenue.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and directing a fresh assessment by the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate her stand.