2023 (4) TMI 1104 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal emphasizes procedural fairness in appeal decision

The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the ... Complete scrutiny assessment through CASS - Unexplained cash credit - cash deposit during demonetization period unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A - As argued no opportunity of heard was granted as prescribed u/s 250(1) and 250(2) - HELD THAT:- The purpose of framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act is, inter-alia, to see that the assessee is maintaining proper records, books of accounts etc. and compliance of various applicable provisions of the 1961 Act are made, to finally arrive at income chargeable to tax and compute tax liability of the tax-payer within the mandate of the provisions of the 1961 Act. In case of non compliances of various applicable provisions of the 1961 Act, consequential penal provisions are prescribed in the 1961 Act itself which will get attracted and which has direct bearing on computing income chargeable to tax. CIT(A) in the first round of appeal accepted replies/explanations/submissions/ evidences etc. filed by the assessee without calling for remand report/comments from the AO in breach of Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules and even no opportunity of heard was granted as prescribed u/s 250(1) and 250(2) of the 1961 Act, and granted substantial relief to the assessee. The assessee did not filed any appeal before tribunal against the additions confirmed by ld. CIT(A).We have set aside the appellate order of ld. CIT(A) on the grounds raised by Revenue in its appeal before tribunal, and appeal is now restored at its original level. Needless to say that powers of ld. CIT(A) are coterminus with the powers of ld. AO - Thus the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose, in the manner indicated above Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Deletion of additions on account of unexplained money/cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained trade payables.4. Deletion of addition as reflected in Form 26AS.5. Absence of opportunity for the Assessing Officer to be heard during the appellate proceedings.Summary:Issue 1: Unexplained Cash Credits under Section 68The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,21,914/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the statutory notices issued by the AO and failed to provide any explanation or evidence during the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144.Issue 2: Unexplained Money/Cash Deposits under Section 69AThe Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 31,00,000/- and Rs. 9,83,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's non-cooperation during the assessment led to the ex-parte order. The CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without seeking a remand report from the AO, violating Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.Issue 3: Unexplained Trade PayablesThe Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,99,269/- on account of unexplained trade payables. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) granted relief based on additional evidence submitted by the assessee for the first time during the appellate proceedings, without giving the AO an opportunity to verify the evidence.Issue 4: Addition Reflected in Form 26ASThe Revenue contended that the CIT(A) wrongly deleted the addition of Rs. 15,43,065/- as reflected in Form 26AS. The Tribunal reiterated that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before granting relief based on new evidence.Issue 5: Opportunity for AO to be HeardThe Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) failed to provide the AO an opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural rules to ensure fair adjudication.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the appellate order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity for both the assessee and the AO to present their case. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, without commenting on the merits of the issues.