Non-mentioning specific sections by AO does not invalidate additions if sustainable under Income Tax Act; matter remanded for evidence verification.

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 06.05.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2021-2022.

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The learned CIT(A) is correct in appreciating the fact that mere non mentioning the section against which the additions are made can not be considered as bad in law as long as it is in conformity with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

2. Whether the learned CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Smt Sudha Loyalka Vs ITO which order was set aside by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi to the file of the Hon'ble ITAT.

3. Whether the learned CIT(A) is correct in appreciating the fact that the assessee did not adduce any documentary evidence before the AO relating to the sources of cash deposit in bank accounts and thereby the assessee failed to discharge the onus.

4. The Id. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the assessee failed to adduce any documentary evidence relating to the sources of investment in purchase of immovable properties.

5. The Ld. CITA) ought to have appreciated the fact that the onus is on the assessee to establish the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions made with persons from whom the assessee claimed to have received the advances.

6. The CIT (A) erred in appreciating the fact that Section 292B of Income Tax Act validates proceedings even if there are procedural mistakes. defects or omissions, as long as they are in conformity with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings w/s. 271AAC(1) which shows that the intended additions attract provisions of 1158BE only.

8. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.

3. The learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made 05 additions comprising of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account, unexplained source of investment in purchase of immovable properties; unexplained cash credit, unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee and unexplained credit in the bank account of the assessee. The learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has specifically asked the assessee to submit the source of cash deposits of Rs.33,40,000/- but the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidences to explain the source of cash deposit of the said amount. Further, the assessee is also not maintaining any books of accounts or balance sheet. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of the unexplained cash credits. Similarly, the assessee has purchased 05 properties for a consideration of Rs.1,37,78,605/- but failed to explain the source of the said investment despite the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not filed any documentary evidence regarding the investment in the properties and also not maintaining any books of accounts or cash book or ledger. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence as well as books of accounts, the Assessing Officer has made the addition of the said amount of Rs.1,37,78,605/- as unexplained investment. Another addition was made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit which was claimed by the assessee as advance from parties, however, the assessee has neither submitted any details of the parties comprising name, address and PAN nor any confirmation, ITR or bank account statement of those parties. Therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence, genuineness of the claim of advances from different parties cou