2021 (10) TMI 735 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed, CIT(A)'s Decision Upheld. AO's Remand Report Conclusive.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-15 (3) Hyderabad Versus Shri Ramanalal Gudivada

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,62,87,257/- based on verified evidence. The ... Admitting the assessee's agricultural income without filing the revised return along with un-explained stock - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has nowhere even dealt with the issue of agricultural income. The Revenue's instant former substantive grievance is rejected therefore. The outcome is no different qua the Revenue's latter substantive ground regarding un-explained stock value as well wherein the Assessing Officer's remand report dt. 25-09-2019 had itself accepted the source of additional capital as on 14-07-2004 and in the return(s) of income filed from 2005-06 to 2016-17. We thus quote case law - CIT Vs. DM Purnesh [2020 (9) TMI 731 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and B. Jayalakshmi [2018 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and held that the Revenue cannot be held as an aggrieved party once the Assessing Officer files a favourable remand report before the CIT(A). We thus affirm the CIT(A)'s findings deleting the impugned addition(s) - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:1. Maintenance of regular books of accounts by the appellant.2. Adoption of stock figures from FY 2004-05.3. Non-production of books of accounts and supporting documents.4. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) without a speaking order.5. Non-disclosure of agricultural income in the original return.6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,62,87,257/- by CIT(A).Detailed Analysis:1. Maintenance of Regular Books of Accounts:The Revenue contended that the appellant did not maintain regular books of accounts and that the balance sheet as of 31.03.2016 was drawn without supporting evidence. The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's explanation that the balance sheet was prepared considering assets and liabilities as of 01.04.2015 and 31.03.2016 due to the absence of regular books.2. Adoption of Stock Figures from FY 2004-05:The Revenue argued that the appellant adopted stock figures from FY 2004-05, which were not acceptable as no books of accounts were maintained. The CIT(A) found that the appellant used stock figures from a survey conducted on 14.07.2004, which showed 15 kg of gold and 96 kg of silver. The appellant's modus operandi involved replacing sold items with new ones, keeping the stock quantity constant but fluctuating in value.3. Non-Production of Books of Accounts and Supporting Documents:The Revenue highlighted that the appellant failed to produce books of accounts and relevant documents during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence during appellate proceedings and forwarded it to the Assessing Officer for a remand report. The AO verified the evidence and found the appellant's claims regarding capital introduction and stock figures to be correct.4. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A) Without a Speaking Order:The Revenue claimed that CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without passing a speaking order, violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the remand report from the AO confirmed the correctness of the appellant's submissions, and CIT(A) accepted the evidence based on this verification.5. Non-Disclosure of Agricultural Income in the Original Return:The Revenue argued that the appellant should have filed a revised return to disclose Rs. 26,00,000/- of agricultural income. The CIT(A) noted that the agricultural income was held by the appellant in the capacity of HUF, and no return was filed for HUF as there was no taxable income. The AO's remand report confirmed the appellant's explanation and verified the agricultural income with documentary evidence.6. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 4,62,87,257/- by CIT(A):The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 4,62,87,257/- added by the AO as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's detailed explanation and the AO's remand report, which verified the sources of additional capital and stock figures. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition based on the verified evidence.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal cited case law, including CIT Vs. DM Purnesh and B. Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT, to hold that the Revenue cannot be aggrieved once the AO files a favorable remand report. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the impugned addition was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.