Case Law Details
Amrutlal Gangaji Choudhary Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Section 68 addition based on mere bald findings without giving any cogent and convincing reasons based on evidence on record not sustainable
The ld.CIT(A) without adverting to the evidence filed before him, had simply concluded that the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the credit transactions was not proved and confirmed the addition. From the material filed before ld.CIT(A), it is clear that the appellant had filed the details of each and every receipt of loan received. The ld.CIT(A) without adverting to the evidence filed before him, without discussing the evidence in respect of each credit and assigning reasons, confirmed the addition by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the creditworthiness of creditors. Thus, the order of the ld.CIT(A) is devoid of any reasons. Needless to say that the ld.CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority. An order passed by the quasi-judicial authority should be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Recording of reasons for the conclusions reached by an authority is a part and parcel of the principles of natural justice.
On reading the order of ld.CIT(A) it would show that the ld.CIT(A) had given bald findings without giving any cogent and convincing reasons based on evidence on record. Therefore, the order of ld.CIT(A) cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In order to meet the ends of justice, we remand the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
