2022 (5) TMI 888 - AT - Income Tax

Revenue's Addition Challenge under Income Tax Act; Lack of Representation Leads to Ex-Parte Disposal

Income Tax Officer Ward–2 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Shri Pravin Ambalal Debi

The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding an addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The lack of assessee ... Addition u/s 69 - Unexplained investment - Whether CIT(A) is right in allowing the appeal on merely technical ground of lack of enquiry by A.O., when the CIT Appeal himself has all the powers of the AO? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee had not filed return of income and in order to verify the transactions as intimated by the investigation wing, the summons was issued. However, the same was also not attended by the assessee, and reassessment proceeding u/s 148 was initiated. AO by referring to the statement of the Director of Consortium Capital Private Limited made the addition under section 69 - CIT(A) thought observed that various submissions, as filed by the assessee, were not considered by the Assessing Officer while making the addition, however, learned CIT(A) failed to make any enquiry nor called for any remand report from the Assessing Officer, even after noting various shortcomings in the assessment order. The learned CIT(A) merely on account of absence of material being brought on record deleted the addition made under section 69 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that, in the present case, CIT(A) has not discharged its obligation of ensuring effective enquiry and detailed scrutiny of all the aspects while deciding the appeal. Thus, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after conducting proper and effective enquiry. Appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:1. Challenge to the impugned order dated 19.07.2019 by the Revenue.2. Lack of representation by the assessee during the appeal hearing.3. Addition made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.5. Failure to conduct proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer.6. Consideration of principles enumerated by the Hon. Delhi High Court.7. Obligation of the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure effective inquiry and detailed scrutiny.Issue 1: Challenge to the impugned orderThe Revenue filed an appeal challenging the order dated 19.07.2019 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was filed due to dissatisfaction with the decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the addition made under section 69 of the Act.Issue 2: Lack of representation by the assesseeDuring the appeal hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and there was no application for adjournment. This lack of representation led to the appeal being disposed of ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the Departmental Representative and based on the available material on record.Issue 3: Addition made under section 69The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 10,88,98,220 as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, as the assessee failed to provide an explanation for the investments. The Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted this addition, citing lack of proof of unaccounted investment made by the assessee.Issue 4: Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals)The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69. The decision was based on the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider objections and conduct a proper inquiry into the transactions in question.Issue 5: Failure to conduct proper inquiryThe Assessing Officer failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the transactions and investments of the assessee, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) noting various shortcomings in the assessment order. This lack of inquiry was a key factor in the decision-making process.Issue 6: Consideration of principles enumerated by the Hon. Delhi High CourtThe Revenue relied on a decision by the Hon. Delhi High Court in a similar case to support its argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have closed the case without ensuring an effective inquiry was carried out. The High Court emphasized the importance of detailed scrutiny and further inquiry in such cases.Issue 7: Obligation of the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure effective inquiryThe Tribunal highlighted the obligation of the Commissioner (Appeals) to conduct a proper and effective inquiry, especially when various submissions and objections were not considered by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after conducting a thorough inquiry.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the relevant issues involved in the case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities.