2023 (1) TMI 889 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules for Revenue in appeal stressing AO's verification duty,

The DCIT, Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai Versus M/s. Brayan Automations Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes in both cases. The decision emphasized the importance of the ... Admission of additional evidences by CIT - Claim of deduction u/s.35D in regard to pre-operative charges - Addition of unsecured loans - CIT-A deleted addition - whether CIT(A) after considering additional evidences as noted by him, deleted the addition without confronting the same to the AO? - HELD THAT:- As admitted that the assessee has filed the evidences before the CIT(A) for the first time on both the issues and he has no objection in case, the matter goes back to the file of the AO for verification. We are of the view that whatever evidences were produced by assessee before CIT(A), the same be produced before AO who will verify the same and will decide the claim accordingly. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Issues: Violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by CIT(A) in admitting fresh evidences regarding deduction u/s.35D and addition of unsecured loans.Deduction u/s.35D - Preliminary Expenses Written Off:The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to admit fresh evidence regarding the claim of deduction u/s.35D of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by not giving the AO an opportunity to verify the new evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence without confronting the AO, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee based on the details furnished, including purchase accounts, salary accounts, and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) concluded that there was merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the claim for deduction under Section 35D. However, the Tribunal held that the AO should verify the evidence produced by the assessee, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.Addition of Unsecured Loans - Misclassification as Share Application Money:Regarding the addition of unsecured loans wrongly classified as share application money, the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to admit fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering additional evidence furnished by the assessee, including financial details and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) accepted the appellant's contentions based on the facts and circumstances presented. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not confronting the additional evidence to the AO. The assessee admitted to submitting these evidences for the first time before the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed that the evidence should be verified by the AO, and accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:In both issues, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of the AO verifying the fresh evidence submitted by the assessee before the CIT(A). The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes in both cases. The decision highlighted the necessity of following procedural rules, particularly Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, to ensure proper verification of evidence and adherence to due process in tax assessments.