Smt. Tejashree Jagdish Sasane, Satara V. Income-tax Officer, Satara

ITA 1369/PUN/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane, who appealed against the order of the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) which confirmed the addition of \\u20b948,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had initially filed her return declaring an income of \\u20b95,94,399 for the assessment year 2012-13, which was later assessed at \\u20b957,72,100 after additions including the impugned cash credit. The CIT(A) rejected the admission of additional evidence that could substantiate the credit entry, leading to the appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found merit in the appellant's argument that the additional evidence was crucial and could not be produced during the assessment due to circumstances beyond her control, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136249 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “ए” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩलसं. / ITA No. 1369/PUN/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane Shree, Nr. PCC Pole Factory, Krishnanagar, Satara-415003 PAN:AEBPS2890B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara. . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri M K Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 29/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of first appellate authority [for short “FAA” / “CIT(A)”] dt. 09/03/2017 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”] which in turn sprung out of order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara [for short “AO”] dt. 18/03/2015 for the assessment year [for short “AY”] 2012-13. Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane ITA No.1369/PUN/2017 PAN: AEBPS2890B ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 2. It shall not be out of the box to state that, neither original grounds nor modified grounds raised in the present appeal are in consonance with rule 8 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT-Rules”], for the reason it shall suffice to phrase that, the substantive ground in this appeal revolves alleging aground impugned addition of unexplained cash credit brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are; 3.1 The appellant assessee is a resident individual engaged in the business of trading in all types of Tyre re-treading etc., had for the AY 2012-13 e-filed her return of income [for short “ITR”] on 23/08/2012 declaring total income at ₹5,94,399/-, which was subjected assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the assessment was finally framed assessing total income at ₹57,72,100/- with five additions / disallowance including the impugned addition of ₹48,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act upon the failure of appellant to establish threefold ingredients of cash credit with documentary evidences. Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane ITA No.1369/PUN/2017 PAN: AEBPS2890B ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6 3.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the appellant carried the matter before Ld. FAA, wherein the appellant tried to establish the aforestated three ingredients of cash credit by laying down additional evidence u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [for short “IT-Rules”], however the Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the admission of additional evidence, echoed with the views of Ld. AO in bringing to tax the amount of cash credit as unexplained. 3.3 Alleging the action of both the tax authorities below [for short “TAB”] as erroneous, the appellant assessee by the present appeal seeking relief on the modified grounds. 4. During the course of physical hearing, without touching the merits of the case, the learned representative of the assessee [for short “AR”] at the outset adverting to para 7.10 placed on page 13-14 of first appellate order, submitted that, the additional evidences laid u/r 46A of IT-Rules which goes to prove the very basis of credit entry into books vis-à-vis Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane ITA No.1369/PUN/2017 PAN: AEBPS2890B ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6 financial statement, is rejected to admit by the Ld. FAA without appreciating the fact that, such evidences beyond the control of assessee could not be presented during the course of assessment proceedings. The said rejection is violative of principle of natural justice and for the reason it deserves remand back to Ld. FAA with a direction to deal therewith in accordance with rule 46A of IT-Rules. Au contraire the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] strongly objected the plea of the assessee and contended that, the appellant during the assessment proceedings was accorded ample opportunity to adduce documentary evidences in support of her claim, however same being futile, hence further opportunity to the appellant would lead to unjust to revenue. 5. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on records till the date of conclusive hearing and duly considered the Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane ITA No.1369/PUN/2017 PAN: AEBPS2890B ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to parties present. 6. We note that, during the course of assessment the appellant for a sufficient reason could not produce the documentary evidence in support of her claim in establishing the threefold ingredients of “identification, creditworthiness and genuineness” with respect of amount credited in the books, and consequent to which the addition u/s 68 of the Act was triggered. However, post assessment, the appellant after her persisting follow-up could able to obtain the detailed ledger account from “Nanded City Developers” to support her claim in discharging the onus fastened by section 68 of the Act, therefore we concur with the Ld. AR that, the evidence laid goes to prove the very basis of credit entry in the books and since its being a third party evidence, the appellant assessee prima-facie was prevented from adducing the same during the course of assessment proceedings, hence in our considered opinion the additional evidence laid u/r 46A of IT-Rules deserves Smt Tejashree Jagdish Sasane ITA No.1369/PUN/2017 PAN: AEBPS2890B ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 6 consideration, and for the reason we deem it necessary to remand the file back to the Ld. FAA for a limited purpose with a direction to deal therewith in accordance with rule 46A of the IT-Rules and consequential re-adjudication thereon, thus we order accordingly. 7. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this FRIDAY, 06 th day of January, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 06 th day of January, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune 4. The Concerned CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order, वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.