2018 (10) TMI 1026 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal delay, remands gift issue, dismisses tax challenge, upholds interest charges, issues order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, admitting it for consideration. Regarding the unexplained gift of Rs. 8,00,000, additional evidence ... Unexplained Gift - addition of sum credited to the Capital Account, which is a gift from her husband - application of Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 seeking to admit additional evidence in the form of gift deed and acknowledgements of ITR filed by husband of the assessee, who the assessee claims in the donor of the gift - Held that:- Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case on this issue, where the addition of ₹ 8 lakhs has been made and sustained for want of filing of required details / supporting documents to prove the gift by the assessee, the interest of substantial justice would be served by admitting the additional evidence in the form of documents, i.e. copies of gift deed dt.19.2.2014 and IT Returns for Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16, since they are necessary and relevant and could go to the root of the matter for proper adjudication of this issue. We admit the additional evidence as laid out above - restore the matter to the file of AO. Disallowance of payment of Advance Tax - Held that:- On an appreciation of the facts on record, as find that NIL Advance Tax was paid by the assessee in the year under consideration, as is reflected in the assessee's Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, find merit in the Assessing Officer’s view that no Advance Tax of ₹ 1 lac was paid by the assessee in the year under consideration as shown in her Capital Account for the year ending 31.3.2015. Further, also find that the assessee has actually paid only Self Assessment Tax of ₹ 1 lac vide Axis Bank Cheque on 1.5.2015 which would be reflected in the assessee's Capital Account for the next financial year. - Decided against assessee. Charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B & 234D - Held that:- The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum H Ghaswala [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and we therefore uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in charging the said interest in the case on hand. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.2. Addition of unexplained gift of Rs. 8,00,000.3. Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for payment of Advance Tax.4. Charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Income Tax Act.Condonation of Delay:The Tribunal considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Tribunal deliberated on the delay of 65 days in filing the appeal and referred to the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that there was a reasonable cause for the delay and decided to condone the delay, admitting the appeal for consideration and adjudication.Unexplained Gift of Rs. 8,00,000:The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 credited as a gift from her husband in her Capital Account. The Assessing Officer found the credit unexplained and added it to the assessee's income. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision due to lack of supporting documents. The assessee later submitted a gift deed and IT returns as additional evidence. The Tribunal admitted this evidence, setting aside previous orders and directing a re-examination by the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication.Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for Advance Tax:The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000 for Advance Tax payment. The Assessing Officer contended that no Advance Tax was paid, as claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal reviewed the records and found that no Advance Tax was paid, only Self Assessment Tax. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground.Charging of Interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D:The assessee disputed the charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, citing a Supreme Court ruling that the charging of interest is mandatory. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest if necessary while implementing the order. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed various issues in the appeal, including the condonation of delay, unexplained gift addition, disallowance of Advance Tax, and charging of interest under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for the unexplained gift, dismissed the appeal regarding Advance Tax disallowance, and upheld the charging of interest. The decision was pronounced on October 12, 2018.