Tribunal allows appeal, deletes unexplained cash credit, orders fresh determination for unexplained income

In the case, the tribunal allowed the appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 1995-96, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 after over 17 years, and ordered the deletion of the addition. For AY 1997-98, the tribunal remitted the issue of unexplained income of Rs. 91,09,444 credited in the Reserve and Surplus Account back to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination, emphasizing the need for correct income computation and providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their position.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 for AY 1995-96.
2. Unexplained income of Rs. 91,09,444/- credited in Reserve and Surplus Account for AY 1997-98.

Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 for AY 1995-96

The assessee filed returns for AY 1995-96 declaring "Nil" income, and initially, the Revenue accepted the claim for deduction under Section 80IA. However, subsequent survey and search actions revealed that the assessee had no manufacturing unit at Daman, leading to the reopening of the assessment. The AO denied the deduction under Section 80IA and added Rs. 1,00,00,000/- as unexplained share capital under Section 68.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, which led the assessee to appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing necessary inquiries from the shareholders.

In the second round, the AO issued notices under Section 133(6) to the shareholders, who confirmed their investments and provided PAN/GIR numbers. Despite confirmations, the AO held that the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders were not established and confirmed the addition.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing that mere confirmation of identity and cheque payments were insufficient without proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders.

Upon further appeal, the tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct effective inquiries as directed previously. The tribunal emphasized that the AO should have issued summons under Section 131 or fresh notices under Section 133(6) to obtain the required evidence. Given the lapse of over 17 years and the shareholders' confirmations, the tribunal concluded that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68. The tribunal ordered the deletion of the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and allowed the appeal for AY 1995-96.

Issue 2: Unexplained income of Rs. 91,09,444/- credited in Reserve and Surplus Account for AY 1997-98

The assessee had two sets of audited accounts for FY 1996-97 from different chartered accountants, with a discrepancy of Rs. 91,09,444/- in the Reserve and Surplus Account. The assessee explained that the revised audited accounts were prepared due to errors in the initial audit and claimed no tax implications due to deductions under Sections 80HHC and 80IA.

The AO treated this amount as undisclosed income for AY 1997-98, as it was not reflected in the audited accounts for FY 1995-96. The CIT(A) affirmed the AO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal to the tribunal.

The tribunal observed that both the assessee and Revenue failed to adhere to the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution, which requires correct tax assessment. The tribunal emphasized the need for correct income computation and noted the heavy burden on the assessee to substantiate the non-taxability of the Rs. 91,09,444/-.

Given the peculiar facts, the tribunal set aside the issue and remitted it back to the AO for fresh determination, directing the AO to admit all necessary evidence and explanations from the assessee. The tribunal instructed the AO to provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard and adjudicate the matter on merits according to law.

Conclusion:
The appeal for AY 1995-96 was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was deleted. The appeal for AY 1997-98 was allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

---