2018 (9) TMI 341 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT upholds CIT(A) decision on Section 68 disallowance, criticizes Revenue for frivolous appeal

The ITO, Ward-2, Khanna Versus Smt. Kamaljit Dhillon W/o Lt. Shri Jagtar Singh

The ITO, Ward-2, Khanna Versus Smt. Kamaljit Dhillon W/o Lt. Shri Jagtar Singh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Admission of fresh evidence by CIT(A).3. Maintainability and frivolous nature of the Revenue's appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 68:The primary issue in this case was whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 43,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which pertained to unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer (AO) had added this amount to the assessee's income, as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the sources of cash deposits in her bank account during the assessment proceedings.The assessee, a non-resident Indian permanently settled in Canada, claimed that the cash deposits were from the sale proceeds of ancestral rural agricultural land. The sale was conducted during her visit to India, and the proceeds were deposited in her bank account. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation after considering additional evidence and a remand report from the AO, which verified the genuineness of the cash deposits.2. Admission of Fresh Evidence by CIT(A):The CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence provided by the assessee, which included the registered sale deed of the agricultural land and a Google map extract showing the land's location outside municipal limits. The AO initially objected to the admission of fresh evidence, citing the assessee's non-cooperation during the assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) directed the AO to provide a remand report on the merits of the evidence.In the remand report dated 07/09/2016, the AO confirmed the genuineness of the cash deposits, stating that the amount was received from the sale of ancestral agricultural land. The CIT(A) found justifiable reasons for admitting the additional evidence and concluded that the source of cash deposits was satisfactorily explained with documentary evidence.3. Maintainability and Frivolous Nature of the Revenue's Appeal:The Revenue's appeal was based on the contention that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance. However, the ITAT noted that the AO had already accepted the genuineness of the cash deposits in the remand report. The Revenue's appeal was deemed frivolous as it contradicted the AO's own findings in the remand proceedings.The ITAT criticized the Revenue for filing a frivolous appeal, wasting the court's time, and causing unnecessary harassment to the assessee. The procedures in place to prevent such frivolous appeals were found to be ineffective. The ITAT emphasized that the AO's satisfaction in the remand proceedings should have precluded the filing of the appeal.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 68. The ITAT highlighted the need for the Revenue to exercise discretion judiciously and avoid filing frivolous appeals. The order emphasized the importance of administrative checks and balances to prevent unnecessary litigation and ensure fair treatment of taxpayers.