2019 (1) TMI 93 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Remands Case for Re-evaluation

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without proper examination by the AO and not providing a reasoned order ... Admission of additional evidences - due opportunity of being heard - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee has filed a paper book containing more than 1900 pages and it is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not examined a single page out of the paper book so filed before us which was filed before the CIT(A). Since the order of the CIT(A) in the instant case is a cryptic one, without deliberating upon the provisions of the Act regarding the admissibility of the additional evidences where an assessee deliberately defied the statutory notices and considering the fact that non-submission of these details before the AO due to failure on the part of the counsel is a general one without any corroborative evidence we are of the considered opinion that the matter needs a thorough relook at the level of the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to go through all the details and decide the issue - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A).2. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained increase in share capital.3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained increase in share application money.4. Restriction of disallowance on account of expenses.5. Rejection of books of accounts by CIT(A).Detailed Analysis:1. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence during the appellate proceedings, which was not presented before the Assessing Officer (AO) due to non-compliance by the assessee. The AO argued that the case did not fall under the exceptions provided in Rule 46A(1) and that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A(3) by not allowing the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine the additional evidence. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned order for admitting the additional evidence and failed to address the objections raised by the AO.2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Increase in Share Capital:The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 91,26,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained increase in share capital, including share premium. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in doing so without proper justification. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without proper examination by the AO, which necessitated a re-evaluation by the AO.3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Increase in Share Application Money:The CIT(A) also deleted the addition of Rs. 43,15,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained increase in share application money. Similar to the issue of share capital, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without allowing the AO to examine it, warranting a remand to the AO for a thorough review.4. Restriction of Disallowance on Account of Expenses:The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 58,65,80,553/- on account of expenses, which the CIT(A) restricted to Rs. 7,76,39,843/-. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance despite identifying defects in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed reasoning for the restriction and that the AO should re-examine the evidence to determine the appropriate disallowance.5. Rejection of Books of Accounts by CIT(A):The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) should have rejected the books of accounts due to identified defects. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the AO's findings regarding the defects in the books of accounts and admitted additional evidence without proper examination. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-evaluate the books of accounts and the additional evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without proper examination by the AO and failed to provide a reasoned order addressing the AO's objections. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a thorough re-evaluation of all details and evidence, directing the AO to decide the issues as per law after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The cross appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.