2014 (2) TMI 938 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal orders factual verification, fresh examination of evidence, and dismisses Revenue's appeal.

ITO, New Delhi Versus M/s Value Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for factual verification regarding the addition of Rs. 1,75,20,000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act, ... Addition u/s 68 of the Act set aside – Validity of Admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules – Held that:- The assessee has failed to submit the relevant documents before the AO – though, he has submitted some details before the CIT(A) - As regards the contention of the assessee that the amount was received as share application money, it is a matter of factual verification - If the assessee has only received Rs. 12,00,000/- share application money during financial year 2006-07, AO can consider only the said amount u/s. 68 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2007-08 - Rest amount cannot be considered in the current year as share application money receipt under section 68 of the I.T. Act – thus, the matter remitted back to AO for fresh adjudication. Issues:1. Addition of Rs. 1,75,20,000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act2. Acceptance of additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules3. Allowance of expenses of Rs. 51,601Analysis:1. Addition of Rs. 1,75,20,000 under section 68 of the I.T. Act:The AO observed that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness, genuineness, and identity of shareholders regarding the share application money received. Consequently, the AO treated the amount as undisclosed income and added it under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the genuineness of documents and contentions presented by the assessee, setting aside the issue for limited verification. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the AO for factual verification, instructing the AO to consider only the share application money received during the relevant financial year for assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the AO to examine the submissions of the assessee and make a decision accordingly.2. Acceptance of additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules:The Ld. CIT(A) accepted additional evidence submitted by the assessee without confronting the AO, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal acknowledged the correctness of the Revenue's contention that the Ld. CIT(A) lacked the authority to set aside the issue to the AO. Despite the assessee's failure to provide relevant documents to the AO, some details were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO for a fresh examination of the identity of depositors, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness of share applicants, emphasizing the importance of granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard.3. Allowance of expenses of Rs. 51,601:The Tribunal noted that the allowance of expenses of Rs. 51,601 did not arise from the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, leading to the dismissal of this particular ground raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal pronouncing the order in the Open Court on 23/1/2014 after the conclusion of the hearing.