| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3600 (Ahd-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 68
Where revenue authorities have not analytically examined the material even available before them and should have analytically examined AIR information and should have called for further information from the bank, if some non-bank transaction was reflected, which was to be considered as unexplained credit, since CIT(A) ought to have taken additional evidence on record for a just decision of appeal, therefore, matter was remanded back to AO who would adjudicate case in accordance with law.
|
Income from undisclosed source - Unexplained deposits of cash in bank - Assessment of trust -
Assessee was registered under section 12AA and claimed deduction for utilization of fund for the objects of Trust under section 11. Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment, and notice under section 143(2) was issued and received by assessee. According to AO, in response to various notices issued under section 143(2)/142(1), assessee did not appear before him. AO got certain information from the AIR wing exhibiting the fact that assessee had deposited cash in a Sahakari Bank. Similarly, it had deposited a sum in two banks. Apart from these two amounts, other additions were made by AO under section 68. Assessee went in appeal before first appellate authority and filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. CIT(A) had a glance over the total material, but did not admit evidence on the ground that the case of assessee does not fall within the condition contemplated in Rule 46A.Held: Revenue authorities have not analytically examined the material even available before them. Even if it is an ex parte order, then it was appreciated that AO was harping upon an AIR information. He should have analytically examined AIR information and should have called for further information from the bank, if some non-bank transaction was reflected, which was to be considered as unexplained credit. Punishment in shape of tax liability on addition was quite disproportionate than the negligence at the end of the assessee before AO. CIT(A) ought to have taken additional evidence on record for a just decision of appeal. Quasi-judicial authorities were being respected not on account of their power to legalize injustice on technical ground, but because they were capable of removing the injustice, and was expected to do so. Therefore, matter was remanded back to AO who would adjudicate the case in accordance with law.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|