9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 546 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits, disallowance of claim made under Chapter-VIA and unexplained credits - CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and granted part relief and confirmed the additions - HELD THAT - It is noted from the order sheet that on various occasions, in fact on all occasions, the case was adjourned as there was none appeared to represent the case of the assessee. However, on perusal of the facts, we observed that the though the Ld. AO made additions the Ld. CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee and following the principles of natural justice allowed the additional evidence furnished before him and called for the remand report. Based on the assessee s submissions, remand report of the Ld. AO as well as the additional evidences produced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) granted substantial relief to the assessee more that 60% of the quantum additions. In our considered opinion, the onus is on the assessee to appear before the Tribunal and substantiate its claim by producing the cogent material and documentary evidence. In the present case, this lacks on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any material / documentary evidence contrary to the decision of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion that there no interference is required in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Assessee appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Assessment for AY 2010-11 - Unexplained cash deposits, disallowance under Chapter-VIA, unexplained credits. 2. Admissibility of additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2010-11. 3. Validity of assessment order date in AY 2010-11. 4. Assessment for AY 2011-12 - Unexplained cash credits, unexplained investments, gift from son. 5. Admissibility of additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A) in AY 2011-12. Analysis: 1. Assessment for AY 2010-11: The appellant contested the additions made by the Ld. AO, including unexplained cash deposits, disallowance under Chapter-VIA, and unexplained credits totaling Rs. 1,08,92,792/-. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted additional evidence despite objections from Ld. AO and granted partial relief, confirming additions of Rs. 40,15,000/-. The Tribunal noted the lack of representation by the appellant, upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence to support their claims. 2. Admissibility of Additional Evidence - AY 2010-11: The Ld. CIT(A) allowed additional evidence submission by the appellant after objections from the Ld. AO, based on principles of natural justice. Despite the Ld. AO's contention that the appellant did not meet Rule 46A criteria, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the evidence, granting partial relief. The Tribunal upheld this decision, highlighting the appellant's responsibility to present cogent material to substantiate claims. 3. Validity of Assessment Order Date - AY 2010-11: The appellant raised a concern regarding the assessment order's validity, claiming the Ld. AO passed the order on the same date set for filing objections. However, this issue was not pursued further as the appellant did not provide representation during the proceedings. The Tribunal did not find grounds for interference in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. 4. Assessment for AY 2011-12: In this assessment year, the Ld. AO made additions for unexplained cash credits and unexplained investments, totaling Rs. 46,41,066/-. The Ld. CIT(A) partially sustained the additions at Rs. 39,76,010/- after considering the appellant's submissions and documentary evidence. The Tribunal, observing the lack of representation by the appellant, upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence to support their contentions. 5. Admissibility of Additional Evidence - AY 2011-12: Similar to AY 2010-11, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed additional evidence submission by the appellant and granted partial relief based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal upheld this decision, reiterating the appellant's responsibility to substantiate claims with credible material. In conclusion, both appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed, emphasizing the importance of presenting substantial evidence to support claims during assessments and appeals.
|
