2020 (1) TMI 916 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal, remands case for fresh adjudication with proper evidence verification.

ITO, Ward-14 (4), New Delhi Versus M/s. Kuldeep Textiles (P.) Ltd.

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with proper verification of ... Unexplained advance - unexplained cash deposited in bank - unexplained investment in shares - CIT-A deleted the addition - burden of proof - case of the assessee was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has relied on the statement of persons before the Investigation Wing but the assessee has not produced any evidences before the ld. CIT(A) or before the Assessing Officer to corroborate those statements that the assessee company was engaged in providing only accommodation entries. The assessee-company has not provided any affidavits from the beneficiary companies to support its claim of being engaged in providing accommodation entries. The primary onus under section 68 of the Act is on the assessee to discharge and explain the nature and source of the entries in books of account. Estimating the income at the rate of 1% presuming that the assessee was engaged in providing only accommodation entries against commission by the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. We feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after verification of documentary evidence, if any, which shall be produced by the assessee to substantiate its claim that it has rotated money of the beneficiaries and provided accommodation entries to the beneficiaries against certain commission only. The assessee should produce those beneficiaries before the Assessing Officer in support of its claim of having engaged only in providing accommodation entries to the beneficiaries. It is needless to mention that both the parties, i.e., the assessee and Assessing Officer shall be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition as unexplained advance to M/s. Aakriti International Inc.2. Deletion of addition as unexplained investment in shares.3. Restriction of total addition made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act to 1% of the total amount.4. General error in the order of the CIT(A).Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition as Unexplained Advance to M/s. Aakriti International Inc.:The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 23,02,268 as unexplained advance given to M/s. Aakriti International Inc., which was not reflected in the assessee's balance sheet. The AO concluded that this amount was given out of undisclosed sources of income. The CIT(A) deleted this addition based on the precedent set in the case of Tarun Goel, where the Tribunal had suggested considering peak credits for such additions. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim that the amount was an advance from disclosed sources. Therefore, the deletion was not justified, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.2. Deletion of Addition as Unexplained Investment in Shares:The AO added Rs. 15,00,000 as unexplained investment in shares, which was not accounted for in the assessee's books. The CIT(A) again relied on the Tarun Goel case to estimate the income based on commission. The Tribunal found the approach of the CIT(A) unjustified as there was no documentary evidence to support the claim that the investment was made from disclosed sources. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh verification and adjudication.3. Restriction of Total Addition Made Under Section 68 to 1% of the Total Amount:The AO added Rs. 4,23,52,500 under Section 68 as unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to 1% of the total amount, assuming that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries for commission. The Tribunal found this estimation without any supporting evidence unjustified. The primary onus under Section 68 is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of the entries. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after verification of documentary evidence, if any, provided by the assessee to substantiate its claim.4. General Error in the Order of the CIT(A):The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had relied on statements from the Investigation Wing without any corroborative evidence from the assessee. The CIT(A)'s approach of estimating income at 1% based on presumed commission income was not justified. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide an adequate opportunity for both the assessee and the AO to present their cases with proper evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue for statistical purposes, restoring the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with proper verification of documentary evidence. The assessee is required to produce evidence and beneficiaries to support its claims, and both parties will be given adequate opportunities to be heard.