2025 (6) TMI 482 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT sets aside deletion of unexplained investment addition under section 69 due to insufficient verification of society's existence

ITO, Kolhapur Versus Sunil Adgonda Patil

ITAT Pune set aside CIT(A)/NFAC's order deleting addition under section 69 for unexplained investment. The appellate authority erred by accepting a ... Addition u/s 69 - unexplained investment - CIT(A) deleted Addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A)/NFAC committed error in accepting the certificate issued by the so-called society without verifying the fact that whether such society is actually existing or is on paper only since by-laws or Rules were not furnished before CIT(A)/NFAC. We also find that CIT(A)/NFAC failed to verify the fact that even subsequently the society get itself registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Society or not and whether subsequently Shri Bharat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. has substituted the correct PAN of the society in its bank account in the place of assessee’s PAN number. We also find CIT(A)/NFAC failed to verify the fact that whether the so-called society has made regular books of accounts and got them audited as required u/s 44AB of the IT Act and furnished its return of income. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this appeal are:(a) Whether the addition of Rs. 3,20,31,360/- made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained investment in the assessee's bank account is justified, given the contention that the amount belongs to a cooperative society and not the assessee personally.(b) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine additional evidence admitted by the AO under the provisions of section 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.(c) Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in admitting evidence filed before him without providing the AO an opportunity for rebuttal, particularly when such evidence was not furnished during the assessment proceedings.(d) Whether the existence and legitimacy of the cooperative society, namely 'Niyojit Shetkari Bhajipala Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit,' which purportedly owns the bank account and the cash deposits, was adequately established.(e) Whether the learned CIT(A) properly applied the legal principles and precedents regarding attribution of income when PAN of the assessee was used to open a bank account on behalf of the society.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Legitimacy of Addition under Section 69 on Unexplained InvestmentLegal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the Income Tax Act permits addition to income where the assessee has made investments or deposits which are unexplained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The burden is on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source and ownership of such investments or deposits.Relevant precedents cited include:The Ahmedabad ITAT decision in Bamkimbhai D. Patel v ITO (2021) which held that a person acting as a power of attorney or in a representative capacity cannot be treated as the owner of income arising from transactions conducted on behalf of another entity.The Delhi ITAT decision in ITO vs. Vinod Chadha (2016) where cash deposits in an assessee's bank account representing partnership firm sales were held not to be unexplained money in the assessee's hands when adequately explained with supporting sales receipts and books of accounts.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The learned CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that the bank account in question, though opened in the assessee's PAN, actually belongs to the cooperative society which did not have a PAN at the time of account opening. The transactions in the account represented cash collections from vegetable sales by the society, and thus did not belong to the assessee personally.The CIT(A) relied on documentary evidence including the bank account opening form, software master screenshot from the bank, and certificates from both the bank and the cooperative society confirming that the transactions did not belong to the assessee.Applying the precedents, the CIT(A) found that the assessee was acting as chairman and the PAN was used merely for administrative purposes, not as owner of the income. Hence, addition under section 69 was deleted.Key Evidence and Findings:Bank account opening form showing the account belongs to the society.Certificate from the Bharat Urban Co-operative Bank confirming the transactions do not belong to the assessee.Certificate from the cooperative society asserting ownership of the transactions.Profit and Loss Account of the society reflecting the cash deposits and turnover.Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the assessee's PAN was used only because the society lacked a PAN at the time. The transactions were linked to the society's business activities and not the assessee's personal income. Thus, the addition under section 69 was not sustainable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue challenged the acceptance of certificates from an unregistered entity and pointed out absence of PAN or registration of the society, lack of by-laws or rules, absence of audited accounts and returns, and inconsistencies in the bank account statements showing the assessee as proprietor. The Revenue argued that these facts indicate the society was a facade to conceal the assessee's income.The Court acknowledged these concerns but noted that the CIT(A) had not investigated these aspects in detail. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the existence and legitimacy of the society were not adequately verified.Conclusion: While the CIT(A) was correct in principle to consider that the cash deposits belonged to the society and not the assessee, the failure to verify the society's existence, registration, PAN allotment, maintenance of books, and audit compliance warranted remand for fresh consideration.Issue (b) and (c): Admission of Additional Evidence and Opportunity for RebuttalLegal Framework: Section 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules empowers the AO to examine additional evidence admitted by the appellate authority. Principles of natural justice require that the AO be given an opportunity to rebut evidence submitted for the first time before the appellate authority.Court's Reasoning: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred by admitting evidence without allowing the AO to rebut and by not permitting the AO to examine additional evidence under section 46A(3). The Tribunal noted these contentions but did not elaborate extensively in the order. The observations implied that procedural fairness was not fully observed.Application to Facts: The CIT(A) admitted certificates from the society and bank which were not produced before the AO. The AO was not given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut these documents. This procedural lapse was a ground for setting aside the CIT(A) order and remanding for fresh adjudication.Conclusion: The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that procedural safeguards were not followed and directed fresh adjudication with opportunity to the AO to examine additional evidence and respond accordingly.Issue (d): Verification of Existence and Legitimacy of the Cooperative SocietyLegal Framework: For the society to be recognized as a separate entity, it must be registered under the appropriate cooperative society legislation, have a PAN, maintain books of accounts, and comply with audit requirements under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not verify whether the society was registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, whether it had obtained a PAN subsequently, or whether the bank account PAN was substituted with the society's PAN. It also noted the absence of by-laws, rules, audited accounts, or income tax returns filed by the society.Key Evidence and Findings: The Revenue pointed out that the electricity bill was in the name of the chairman, not the society; the bank statement showed the assessee as proprietor; and no documentary proof of society's registration or compliance was produced.Application of Law to Facts: The lack of documentary evidence and non-compliance with statutory formalities raised serious doubts about the existence of the society as a separate legal entity. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the society's certificates without verifying these fundamental facts.Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to verify the existence, registration, compliance, and legitimacy of the cooperative society before deciding the appeal.Issue (e): Application of Legal Principles Regarding Attribution of Income and Use of PANLegal Framework and Precedents: Income is taxable in the hands of the person who is the beneficial owner. Mere use of an individual's PAN for administrative convenience does not render the income taxable in that individual's hands if the income belongs to another entity.Court's Reasoning: The CIT(A) relied on the principle that the assessee was acting in a representative capacity as chairman and that the PAN was used only because the society lacked its own PAN. This reasoning aligns with precedents where income of a partnership or other entity is not attributed to an individual partner or representative if adequately explained and documented.Application to Facts: The Tribunal acknowledged this principle but emphasized that the explanation must be supported by credible evidence of the existence and separate identity of the entity. Without verification of the society's registration and compliance, the use of the assessee's PAN alone cannot conclusively exclude the income from the assessee's hands.Conclusion: The principle is sound but its application requires verification of the society's existence and compliance, which was lacking. Hence, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal made the following crucial legal determinations:'It is only appellant's PAN, in the absence of the PAN of the said proposed Co-op society, was used for opening the bank account. The same has been certified by the Bharat Urban Co-op Bank and the said organization that the account does not belong to the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 3,20,31,360/- made by the AO us 69 of the Act is not sustainable and is directed to be deleted.'However, the Tribunal also held:'Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC committed error in accepting the certificate issued by the so-called society without verifying the fact that whether such society is actually existing or is on paper only since by-laws or Rules were not furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We also find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to verify the fact that even subsequently the society get itself registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Society or not and whether subsequently Shri Bharat Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. has substituted the correct PAN of the society in its bank account in the place of assessee's PAN number. We also find Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to verify the fact that whether the so-called society has made regular books of accounts and got them audited as required u/s 44AB of the IT Act and furnished its return of income.'Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter with directions:'We deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law in the light of above observations... after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. If Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC feels it necessary he may call fresh remand report from the Assessing Officer in this regard.'Core principles established include:Use of an individual's PAN for opening a bank account on behalf of an unregistered entity does not ipso facto attribute income to the individual if the entity's ownership is satisfactorily established.Certificates from the entity and bank are relevant but not conclusive evidence of ownership; verification of the entity's existence, registration, compliance with statutory requirements, and maintenance of books and audit is essential.Procedural fairness requires that the AO be given opportunity to examine and rebut additional evidence admitted at the appellate stage.Where the existence and legitimacy of an entity are in doubt, the appellate authority must conduct or direct appropriate verification before deciding the issue.Final determinations:The addition under section 69 was not sustainable on the basis of the evidence before the CIT(A).However, due to procedural and verification lapses, the CIT(A) order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to verify the society's existence, registration, compliance, and to allow AO to examine additional evidence and respond.The appeal by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, effectively setting aside the CIT(A) order and restoring the issue for fresh consideration.