Deletion under s.69A upheld where assessee declared commission income, did not claim exempt capital gains; AO rejected evidence without enquiry

ITAT MUMBAI - AT upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition under s.69A where the assessee had declared commission income and did not claim exempt capital gains; the AO rejected additional evidence without enquiry. The tribunal found the commissioner's review of documents and peculiar facts proper and not perverse or illegal, therefore refused to interfere with the impugned order. Decision rendered against the revenue.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act (sale proceeds treated as unexplained money) is maintainable in view of CBDT Circular No.09/2024 and the quantum/tax effect involved.

1.2 Whether, on the merits, the addition of Rs. 21,56,936 under section 69A, made after assessment completion under section 144 for failure to comply with notice under section 148, was justified where the assessee declared commission income, did not claim exemption under section 10(38), and furnished affidavits and additional evidence asserting the role of third-party "exit providers".

1.3 Whether the Assessing Officer's rejection of proffered witnesses/evidence (affidavit of an alleged exit provider) without conducting enquiry rendered the addition unsustainable.

1.4 Whether inconsistent treatment by the Assessing Officer across assessment years (use of section 69 in one year and section 69A in another) affects the validity of the addition.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Issue 1 - Maintainability in light of administrative circular (CBDT Circular No.09/2024)

Legal framework: Administrative guidance may set thresholds and exceptions for departmental litigation; clause 3.1(h) of the cited circular excludes cases involving tax evasion, bogus capital gains through penny stocks and accommodation entries from threshold-based dismissal.

Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents were invoked or relied upon in the judgment; the Court considered the circular textually.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted Revenue's contention that clause 3.1(h) brings penny-stock/accommodation entry cases within exception and therefore the circular's monetary threshold did not mandate dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was entertained on merits.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative circular exception applied to allow hearing of the appeal; Obiter - none related to the circular.

Conclusion: The appeal was properly entertained despite the monetary quantum being below the circular's threshold because the matter falls within the circular's exception for suspected bogus capital gains/accommodation entries.

2.2 Issue 2 - Applicability of section 69A addition where assessee declared only commission income and did not claim section 10(38)

Legal framework: Section 148 empowers reassessment where income has escaped assessment; section 144 permits assessment in absence of compliance; section 69A treats unexplained money as income. Section 10(38) exempts long-term capital gains in certain conditions.

Precedent Treatment: No prior judicial authorities were applied or distinguished; the Tribunal assessed factual sufficiency of evidence and procedural fairness.

Interpretation and reasoning: The AO reopened assessment based on an investigation report alleging transactions in penny stock scrips totalling the impugned amount and, due to non-compliance with the notice, completed assessment under section 144 and added the sale proceeds under section 69A. The assessee, however, had declared commission income and filed affidavits and documentary material asserting liability only as an "exit provider" and lack of beneficial interest in the shares; the assessee did not claim section 10(38) exemption. The Commissioner (first appellate authority) sought a remand and evidence verification; the AO's remand report rejected the additional evidence without conducting enquiries, notably not examining the deponent of the affidavit who explained the modus operandi and list of exit providers. The Tribunal found that on the totality of facts and materials the Commissioner's deletion of the addition was not perverse, as the AO failed to make enquiries and improperly treated gross receipts as unexplained money despite the assessee's declared commission income and supporting affidavit.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - addition under section 69A deleted where AO failed to investigate material proffered evidence and treated declared commission receipts as unexplained money; Obiter - comments on correctness of AO changing legal posture across years (see Issue 4).

Conclusion: Deletion of the addition was sustainable; the AO's action lacked necessary enquiry and supporting material to treat the receipts as unexplained money in assessee's hands.

2.3 Issue 3 - Procedural fairness: rejection of evidence without enquiry and failure to examine witness (affiant)

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and proper fact-finding require that material evidence and witnesses proffered by a taxpayer be examined or at least considered through enquiries before adverse inferences are drawn; remand reports should record enquiries conducted.

Precedent Treatment: No authorities cited; Tribunal applied standard principles of evidentiary fairness.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Commissioner remanded the matter to the AO to verify the additional evidences. The AO's remand report however rejected the evidence without conducting enquiries or allowing cross-examination of the deponent who had furnished an affidavit and list of exit providers. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to act on the specific request to examine the asserted witness and to investigate the modus operandi diminished the probative basis for treating the entire receipts as unexplained money.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where AO rejects proffered material without enquiry, addition based solely on investigation report is vulnerable; Obiter - none beyond evidentiary fairness.

Conclusion: The AO's procedural lapse justified interference and supported the deletion of the addition.

2.4 Issue 4 - Effect of inconsistent treatment across assessment years (section 69 vs. section 69A)

Legal framework: Consistent application of legal provisions is desirable; differing approaches across years may indicate lack of coherent factual foundation or selective treatment.

Precedent Treatment: Not invoked.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that in the immediately preceding year the AO treated the purchase as unexplained investment under section 69, whereas in the year under appeal the AO treated sale proceeds as unexplained under section 69A, reflecting inconsistent positions. The Tribunal viewed this inconsistency as emblematic of the AO's uncertain fact-finding and failure to undertake a coherent enquiry into the transactions.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter with factual relevance - inconsistency undermines the AO's approach but was not independently dispositive.

Conclusion: The inconsistent treatment reinforced the Tribunal's view that the AO had not performed adequate enquiries and that the addition could not be sustained on the record.

2.5 Issue 5 - Overall disposition: standard for interference with appellate order

Legal framework: Appellate interference with a finding of fact requires demonstration of perversity, impropriety or illegality in the appellate order.

Precedent Treatment: Not cited; Tribunal applied this standard descriptively.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner, after considering the peculiar facts and additional evidences, applied appropriate reasoning in deleting the addition. There was no perversity, impropriety or illegality in the appellate order; the AO's failure to investigate material evidence meant there was insufficient basis for upholding the section 69A addition.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - appellate deletion of addition stands where AO's assessment is based on inadequate enquiry and record does not support treating receipts as unexplained money.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed; the first appellate authority's deletion of the section 69A addition is affirmed for lack of factual and procedural foundation in the assessment proceedings.

---