Facts of the Case

The assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act for the relevant assessment year. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the financial records and transactions of the assessee and made certain additions to the returned income on the ground that the explanations furnished were not satisfactory or adequately supported by documentary evidence.The assessee challenged the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals), who affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the additions made during scrutiny assessment were justified in law.
  2. Whether the assessee had discharged the burden of proof regarding the disputed transactions/income.
  3. Whether the lower authorities properly appreciated the evidence on record.

Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The assessee contended that the additions were made arbitrarily without proper appreciation of facts.
  • It was argued that relevant documents and explanations had been furnished during assessment proceedings.
  • The assessee maintained that the transactions were genuine and duly recorded.
  • The assessment order was alleged to be based on presumptions rather than concrete evidence.

Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The Revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals).
  • It was submitted that the assessee failed to provide credible supporting evidence for the explanations offered.
  • The Department argued that the burden of proof lies on the assessee to substantiate the nature and source of the transactions.
  • Therefore, the additions made during scrutiny assessment were justified.

Court Order / Findings (ITAT)

  • Additions in scrutiny assessment must be supported by proper inquiry and evaluation of evidence.
  • The burden initially lies on the assessee to explain the nature of transactions; however, the Assessing Officer must also base conclusions on tangible material.
  • Where explanations are unsupported or evidence is insufficient, additions may be sustained.

Important Clarification

The Tribunal emphasized that scrutiny assessment proceedings are evidence-based. Neither mere suspicion nor unsubstantiated explanations can determine tax liability; proper documentation and reasoned findings are essential.

Link to download the order –

https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1626416102-253%20of%202018%20Sobat%20Singh%20(Assessee%202%20Appeals)%20%20143%20(3)%20Order.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.