2014 (11) TMI 687 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal remands issues to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing failure to consider presented facts.

The ACIT Central Circle III, Lucknow Versus Shri. Avdhesh Kumar

The Tribunal remanded all issues back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, finding that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the facts and material ... Various grounds raised by revenue as well as assessee long back - No efforts made to dispose appeal - Held that:- The appeals were filed in 2005 and thereafter no effort was made by the assessee as well as the Revenue to get the appeals disposed of - numerous notices of hearing were issued to the assessee and sometime assessee’s representative appeared and sought adjournment – revenue had made his all efforts to contact the assessee on the last known address, but he was not able to trace out the whereabouts of the assessee - Now the assessee has also stopped appearing before the Tribunal despite various notices issued to him - the assessee is not available at the last given address, therefore, no purpose would be served by issuing notices to him – revenue has also contended that the order of the CIT(A) is cryptic, as he has not dealt with the issues on merit - thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication – Decided in favour of revenue. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of additions based on undisclosed bank account entries.2. Deletion of additions based on undisclosed rent received.3. Deletion of additions based on unexplained cash and drafts.4. Deletion of additions based on unexplained cash transactions in a seized diary.5. Deletion of additions based on the seized trial balance of M/s. Durga Shakti Enterprises.6. Deletion of additions based on fresh infusion in the share capital of M/s. U.P. Lime Chemicals Ltd.7. Deletion of additions based on unexplained investment in the share capital of M/s. Bheem Cement Ltd.8. Deletion of additions based on unexplained investment in the share capital of M/s. U.P. Organics Ltd.9. Deletion of additions based on unexplained investment in the names of other directors.10. Deletion of additions based on unexplained investment in the purchase of soft drink material.11. Deletion of additions based on unexplained cash deposits by the assessee's wife.12. Deletion of additions based on unexplained cash deposits in various cash books.13. Deletion of additions based on unexplained bank deposits.14. Addition of undisclosed income based on rent received.15. Addition of undisclosed income based on investment in M/s. Kalachandra Leasing and Finance Company Ltd.16. Addition of undisclosed income based on credits in the bank account of the assessee's daughter.17. Addition of undisclosed income based on reconciliation of figures relating to M/s. Durga Shakti Enterprises.18. Addition of undisclosed income based on affidavits and other documents.19. Jurisdictional issues regarding the legality of the block assessment order.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Additions Based on Undisclosed Bank Account Entries:The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,95,662/- made by the A.O. on account of entries in the undisclosed bank account in the name of M/s Ganga Builders & Promoters, a benami concern of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit.2. Deletion of Additions Based on Undisclosed Rent Received:The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,36,200/- out of Rs. 2,56,000/- made by the A.O. based on seized papers indicating undisclosed rent. The CIT(A) held that the property was a joint family property, but the assessee failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The issue was remanded for fresh consideration.3. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Cash and Drafts:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 2,40,210/- made by the A.O. on the basis of seized papers, arguing that the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the details contained in the seized documents. The Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision on merit.4. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Cash Transactions in a Seized Diary:The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 62,66,748/- based on unexplained cash transactions found in a seized diary. The CIT(A) held that the assessee could not be asked to explain papers not found in his possession. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.5. Deletion of Additions Based on the Seized Trial Balance of M/s. Durga Shakti Enterprises:The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,44,579/- based on the seized trial balance. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessee had a 1/3rd share in the enterprise. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.6. Deletion of Additions Based on Fresh Infusion in the Share Capital of M/s. U.P. Lime Chemicals Ltd.:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 16,12,900/- made by the A.O. on account of fresh infusion in the share capital. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the evidence showing the assessee's significant contribution. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.7. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Investment in the Share Capital of M/s. Bheem Cement Ltd.:The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,48,640/- based on unexplained investment. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the evidence of the assessee's actual contribution. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.8. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Investment in the Share Capital of M/s. U.P. Organics Ltd.:The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,87,790/- based on unexplained investment. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the details in the seized documents. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.9. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Investment in the Names of Other Directors:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 80,85,870/- made on a protective basis. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the failure to explain the investments. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.10. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Investment in the Purchase of Soft Drink Material:The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,02,118/- based on unexplained investment. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the failure to explain the source. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.11. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Cash Deposits by the Assessee's Wife:The Revenue contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,51,000/- based on unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) did not appreciate that the assessee's wife had no independent source of income. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.12. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Cash Deposits in Various Cash Books:The Revenue argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,54,250/- based on unexplained cash deposits. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the failure to explain the source. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.13. Deletion of Additions Based on Unexplained Bank Deposits:The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 41,02,981/- based on unexplained bank deposits. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the failure to explain the source. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.14. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Rent Received:The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,800/- based on rent received. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication on merit.15. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Investment in M/s. Kalachandra Leasing and Finance Company Ltd.:The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,110/- based on alleged investment. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.16. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Credits in the Bank Account of the Assessee's Daughter:The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 26,100/- based on credits in the bank account of his daughter. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.17. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Reconciliation of Figures Relating to M/s. Durga Shakti Enterprises:The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,750/- based on reconciliation of figures. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.18. Addition of Undisclosed Income Based on Affidavits and Other Documents:The assessee contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,87,500/- and Rs. 2,77,500/- based on affidavits and other documents. The Tribunal remanded the issue for fresh adjudication.19. Jurisdictional Issues Regarding the Legality of the Block Assessment Order:The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not quashing the block assessment order due to jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merit and remanded all the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.