2024 (3) TMI 204 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes section 68 addition on share capital receipts due to inadequate investigation and denial of cross-examination rights

Arcl Organics Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-7 (1), Kolkata

Arcl Organics Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-7 (1), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by passing ex-parte order.2. Confirmation of addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.Summary:Issue 1: Addition confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by passing ex-parte orderThe assessee appealed against the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi, for AY 2013-14. The Counsel for the assessee contended that the premises were taken over by the Port Commission, preventing access to necessary documents. The assessment was completed based on available records. The Ld. D.R argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A). After reviewing the contentions, the Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to present necessary evidence due to non-accessibility of the premises. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of AO, directing a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.Issue 2: Confirmation of addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax ActFor AY 2010-11, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee provided various documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction, including bank statements, share allotment letters, and audited balance sheets. The AO, however, added the amount as unexplained cash credit, citing the inability to serve notice to the share subscriber due to an address change. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all necessary documents and that the AO did not carry out further investigation despite being informed of the new address. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, highlighting that the authorities did not investigate the evidence provided. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents supporting the assessee's case, emphasizing that non-production of directors cannot be a ground for addition when other evidence is available. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition. The appeal was allowed.Conclusion:The Tribunal restored the issue for AY 2013-14 to the AO for a fresh decision, while for AY 2010-11, it directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 55,00,000/- under Section 68, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.