Case Number: ITA 1674/DEL/2019
Appellant: Coxwell Domes Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent: ACIT Circle 6(2), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-02-28
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-10-07
Pronounced On: 2021-10-07
The case of Coxwell Domes Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT Circle 6(2), New Delhi (ITA 1674/DEL/2019) revolves around the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained cash credit. Filed on 28th February 2019, this case pertains to the assessment year 2014-15 and was adjudicated by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in New Delhi. The final tribunal order was issued on 7th October 2021, with the judgment pronounced on the same day.
Coxwell Domes Engineers Pvt. Ltd., based in New Delhi, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. The issue arose when the Assessing Officer (AO) treated a loan of Rs. 5,00,000 taken by the appellant as unexplained cash credit. The AO added the amount to the appellant’s income, citing a lack of confirmation from one of the loan parties, Ms. Sunita Goyal.
Aggrieved by the addition, Coxwell Domes Engineers Pvt. Ltd. appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], New Delhi. The appellant explained that due to strained relations with Ms. Sunita Goyal, they were unable to produce her confirmation during the assessment. The appellant subsequently moved an application for additional evidence before the CIT(A), which was rejected. The appellant argued that the transaction was done through banking channels and all necessary details were provided except for the one confirmation.
The ITAT, led by Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member, and Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member, examined the appeal on 6th October 2021. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) rejected the application for additional evidence despite the appellant explaining the reasons for not being able to produce the confirmation earlier. The ITAT emphasized that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with those of the AO and that the CIT(A) should have considered the additional evidence provided by the appellant.
The tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO for a fresh decision. The tribunal directed the AO to give the appellant an opportunity to produce the necessary details and confirmation, and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law. The tribunal’s final judgment stated:
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07/10/2021.
-Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
-Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER
This case highlights common procedural issues where additional evidence is rejected without sufficient consideration, leading to the need for reassessment. Similar cases underline the necessity for thorough documentation and the importance of presenting all relevant evidence during initial proceedings to avoid prolonged litigation.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform