Whether A.O. is duty bound to collect information from his own records if assessee is unresponsive?

Respected Members

?

Dive into jurisprudence, watch out today's income tax case law video to get a concise exploration of legal principles and their real-world applications.

?

YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-rstxNcxE

?

YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKXKnwLQkJA

?

YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cYq776LIw6Y

?

Short note of today's case law for quick reference:

?

[2024] 113 ITR (Trib) 258 (ITAT[Panaji])

[BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL — PANAJI BENCH]

(virtual hearing at Pune)

?

MEDA RAJA KISHOR RAGHURAMY REDDY

v.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

?

S. S. GODARA (Judicial Member) and DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

?

February 28, 2024.

?

1. For A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny.

?

2. The A.O. issued various notices including show cause notice but assessee failed to comply.

?

3. The A.O. added the entire amount of Rs. 6.22 crores appearing in the balance sheet under sundry creditors u/s 68 as unproved creditors on the ground that assessee failed to file the details called for.

?

4. On perusal of form 35, which was enclosed with the appeal, the assessee had made an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

?

5. The Commissioner Appeals had neither followed the procedure laid down in rule 46A nor had passed a speaking order for rejecting the additional evidence.

?

6. On further appeals, it was held that:

The CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on the merit and does not have any power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

?

7. That some of the creditors were renowned companies and it was possible for the A.O. to collect the information directly from these companies u/s 133(6) or 131 of the Act.

?

8. The A.O. had not taken any proactive steps to find the exact details.

?

9. The assessee failed to comply with the notices issued by the A.O., but the A.O. also failed to carry out necessary investigations and to understand the facts in totality.

?

10. The A.O. always had access to the return of the assessee for earlier years but had not bothered to study the details shown in the balance sheets of earlier years.

?

11. The aim of the assessment proceedings was to assess the correct income of the assessee.

?

12. The matter was set aside to CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.