Facts of the Case
The assessee, proprietor of M/s Pawan Traders, was engaged
in the business of coal, liquor, and truck plying. During assessment
proceedings under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that income
from truck plying was not disclosed in the return of income. Accordingly,
income from truck business was estimated under the presumptive taxation
provisions of Section 44AE.
The assessee had purchased a truck during the relevant year.
Out of the purchase cost, a portion was financed, while the balance amount was
treated by the AO as unexplained investment due to lack of satisfactory
explanation. Consequently, addition was made under Section 69.
Further, the AO discovered cash deposits in an undisclosed
Axis Bank account. In the absence of adequate explanation regarding the source,
the deposits were treated as unexplained income. The Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) partly confirmed the additions, granting relief for a portion of
deposits but sustaining the balance.
Issues Involved
- Whether
the addition under Section 69 for alleged unexplained investment in truck
purchase was justified.
- Whether
cash deposits in an undisclosed bank account could be treated as
unexplained income when claimed to be from business receipts.
- Whether
the assessee should be granted further opportunity to substantiate
explanations with evidence.
Petitioner’s Arguments (Assessee)
- A
significant portion of the alleged unexplained investment represented
advance finance charges and insurance paid by the financier and included
in the loan amount.
- Certain
payments were already made and acknowledged.
- Cash
deposits in the undisclosed bank account were claimed to be business
receipts, particularly from truck plying activities.
- The
additions were made without properly considering the factual explanations.
Respondent’s Arguments (Revenue)
- The
assessee failed to provide credible documentary evidence to substantiate
the claimed sources of investment and cash deposits.
- The
explanations offered were unsupported by third-party evidence.
- Therefore,
the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) were justified.
Court Order / Findings (ITAT Allahabad)
Regarding Addition under Section 69 (Truck
Purchase Investment):
The Tribunal observed that the assessee’s explanation
regarding advance finance charges and insurance payments required proper
verification. Since no adequate evidence had been produced earlier, the
Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to
substantiate the claim.
Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh
adjudication after examining relevant documentary evidence.
Regarding Addition on Cash Deposits in
Undisclosed Bank Account:
The Tribunal noted that although part of the deposits had
been explained and accepted, the remaining amount claimed to be from truck
business required verification. The cash book produced before the Tribunal was
incomplete and needed examination.
Thus, this issue was also remanded to the AO for de novo
consideration after allowing the assessee to produce supporting evidence.
Important Clarification by the Tribunal
- The
Assessing Officer must admit all relevant evidence produced by the
assessee.
- Fresh
adjudication must be conducted on merits.
- Adequate
opportunity of being heard must be provided in accordance with the
principles of natural justice.
Final Outcome
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes,
with disputed additions remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh
examination.
Link to download the order – https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1606388868-Yogesh%20kumar%20pandey%20pdf.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.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment