2022 (1) TMI 1357 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Allowed for Fresh Adjudication

Sai Ashish Developers Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli.

Both appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the ... Assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 treating assessee as AOP - HELD THAT:- We find that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed copy of Satakhat. On perusal of the contents of said Satakhat, we find that it has direct relevance to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and the same require consideration. Therefore, instead of the fact that the copy of Satakhat was filed independently on not in the record of assessment for the year under consideration before AO or not, we admit the same as relevant evidence for real determination of issue in hand and remit the issue to the file of CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh by considering the Satakhat dated 04.04.2011 and pass the order in accordance with law. In the result the ground No. III is allowed for statistical purpose. Addition is made on estimation of income/project - The issue relevant to estimation of income of AOP is interlinked and also remitted back to CIT(A) to adjudicate the same after adjudication of ground of appeal in A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is given liberty to file evidence / additional evidence to substantiate the ground of appeal and move appropriate application in case fresh/new evidence is filed to substantiate its ground of appeal or its contention. Issues:1. Status of assessee as AOP for A.Y. 2011-122. Addition of Rs. 40,00,000 on account of unexplained investment for A.Y. 2011-123. Status of assessee as AOP for A.Y. 2013-144. Addition of Rs. 4,50,00,870 based on incorrect statement for A.Y. 2013-14Analysis:Issue 1: Status of assessee as AOP for A.Y. 2011-12The AO treated the assessee as AOP and made an addition of Rs. 40 lakhs on account of unexplained investment. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, a copy of Satakhat, and directed the CIT(A) to consider it for determining the status of the assessee. The Tribunal allowed this ground for statistical purposes.Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 40,00,000 on account of unexplained investment for A.Y. 2011-12The addition of Rs. 40,00,000 on account of unexplained investment was challenged by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the copy of Satakhat submitted by the assessee was relevant evidence and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed this ground for statistical purposes.Issue 3: Status of assessee as AOP for A.Y. 2013-14Similar to A.Y. 2011-12, the status of the assessee as AOP was challenged for A.Y. 2013-14. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the related issues from A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee was given the liberty to file additional evidence to substantiate their grounds of appeal.Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 4,50,00,870 based on incorrect statement for A.Y. 2013-14The addition of Rs. 4,50,00,870 based on an incorrect statement was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the CIT(A) for further examination after the issues from A.Y. 2011-12 are resolved. The assessee was allowed to provide additional evidence to support their contentions.In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidence before making a decision.