2018 (2) TMI 1145 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Allows Revenue Appeals, Dismisses Assessee Objections, Emphasizes Comprehensive Investigations

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals for statistical purposes, necessitating further inquiries by the CIT(A). The cross objections of the ... Assessment u/s 153A - addition of bogus purchases of raw material - want of proper inquiry - Held that:- CIT-(A) noticed that proper enquiries have not been conducted by the Assessing Officer, however, rather than getting the enquiries done, he simply allowed the appeal of the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, being more or less similar to the facts and circumstances in the case of Jansampark advertising and marketing private limited (2015 (3) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT), we feel it appropriate to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT-(A) for adjudicating afresh in accordance with law. The Ld. CIT-(A) will ensure that effective inquiries are made in the case. If required so, he may remand the matter to the Ld. Assessing Officer and carry out enquiry to ascertain delivery, transportation & consumption of goods. He may also examine bank account of the purchasing parties to find out, whether the assessee or its employees has withdrawn the money in cash from those accounts Unexplained receipt in the transactions with M/s Moon Buildtech Private Limited. - Held that:- CIT-(A) has mentioned that these flats continued to be reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee company, however, he has not mentioned, whether – the evidences relied upon by him in this regard are additional evidence. AO has also not been provided opportunity to rebut those evidences. If according to the Ld. CIT-(A), there was no sale of the flats to M/s MBPL, then he has not brought on record whether the money invested by MBPL was returned back by the assessee alongwith interest. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private Limited (supra) has observed that in the event of AO failing to discharge its function properly, the obligation to conduct proper Inquiry on the facts were naturally shift to the door of the first appellate authority. Thus we feel it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT-(A), with the direction to carry out effective inquiries and decide the issue afresh Addition on account of scrap sales - Held that:- Since in the instant case, it is not clear, whether that assessee has debited the cost of construction in the profit and loss account or it has carried the cost of construction as work in progress for adjustment in subsequent years as expenditure. In case, the cost of construction has been carried as work in progress, in that situation the finding of the Assessing Officer would be logical as income from sale of the scrap is received/accrued in the instant assessment year, and, thus, assessee should have offered the receipt from sale of scrap as income in the year under consideration. Thus restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT-(A) to verify the fact that cost of construction has been claimed as expenditure in the year under consideration or not and adjudicate the issue accordingly Issues Involved:1. Legality of notice under section 153A and initiation of assessment proceedings.2. Addition on account of bogus purchases of raw material.3. Addition on account of unexplained sales.4. Addition on account of scrap sales.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Notice under Section 153A and Initiation of Assessment Proceedings:- The assessee challenged the legality and jurisdiction of the notice issued under section 153A, asserting that the assessment order based on such notice is unsustainable and void.- The Tribunal noted the repeated absence of the assessee and their representatives during hearings despite multiple adjournments and notices served. Consequently, the Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals and cross objections, leading to their dismissal for non-prosecution.2. Addition on Account of Bogus Purchases of Raw Material:- The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on the discovery of ledger accounts for raw material purchases during a search operation, which were deemed bogus due to the inability to verify the existence and genuineness of the suppliers.- The AO's findings were based on the non-existence of suppliers at provided addresses and the failure of the assessee to produce these parties for verification.- The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the addition, citing that the documentary evidence provided by the assessee was sufficient and that the AO should have conducted further inquiries.- The Tribunal, referencing the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private Limited, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration and effective inquiries, emphasizing the need for thorough verification of the transactions and suppliers' identities.3. Addition on Account of Unexplained Sales:- The AO added Rs. 4,50,00,000 as unexplained receipts based on a seized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) indicating sales of flats, which the AO believed were underreported in terms of cash transactions.- The CIT(A) deleted the addition, reasoning that the MOU was a financing transaction and there was no evidence of actual sales or cash payments beyond the documented amounts.- The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted adequate inquiries into the agreements and the actual transactions. Therefore, it restored the issue to the CIT(A) for detailed verification and adjudication, ensuring all relevant evidence is considered.4. Addition on Account of Scrap Sales:- The AO added amounts related to scrap sales, arguing that these should have been shown separately as income rather than being adjusted against purchase expenses.- The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the scrap sales were inherently part of the construction activity and adjusting them against purchase costs did not affect the overall income.- The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) but noted that it was unclear whether the construction expenses were claimed in the same year or carried forward as work-in-progress. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to verify the treatment of these expenses and adjudicate accordingly.Separate Judgments Delivered:- The Tribunal issued consolidated orders for the appeals and cross objections, addressing each issue comprehensively and ensuring consistent application of legal principles across different assessment years and cases.Conclusion:- The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, requiring further inquiries and verification by the CIT(A).- The cross objections of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution.- The Tribunal emphasized the importance of thorough and effective inquiries by the CIT(A) and the AO to ensure accurate and fair assessment of the disputed transactions.