Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (7) TMI 391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nal evidences - DR submitted that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to justify non-production of details before the learned AO though the same was furnished before CIT(A) – Held that:- On examining the books of accounts the learned CIT(A) excluded the opening balance of loans and brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act for the loan obtained during the year for want of details and confirmation - A.O’s order it does not come out that the assessee had not produced the books of accounts before him - no merit in the arguments of the learned DR on this ground of admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 - IT (SS) A No.14 and 15/Ahd/2010, IT (SS) A No.195 and 196/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2012 - SHRI D. K. TYAG .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... idences in contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules,1962 without granting the AO any opportunity of being heard to rebut the evidence produced by the assessee before him. 4. Since, the issues and facts are identical in both the assessment years, for the sake of convenience all the four appeals are taken up together for disposal. 5. Brief facts: Based on the action u/s 132(1) of the IT Act against Neptune Group cases search was conducted including that of the assessee on 01-11-2006. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 153A (1) of the Act was initiated against the assessee. In response to the same, the assessee filed its return of income on 10-04-2008 declaring loss of Rs.3,39,455/- and Rs.7,32,729/- in both the assessment years. Subsequently, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1,83,925/-. During the year, the appellant had repaid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and taken a fresh deposit of Rs.5,16,666/-. Since, the assessee was not able to furnish any details for the loan received during the year of Rs.5,16,166/-, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the same to be the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The balance amount of addition was deleted by the learned CIT(A) since the same pertained to the opening balance and the same cannot be brought under tax for the current assessment year as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 7.1 Assessment Year: 2005-06: Addition of Rs.54,84,927/- Similarly, it was noticed by the learned CIT(A) that in the assessment year 2005-06 the opening balance of unsecured loan stood at Rs.46,00 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act. 10. The learned DR on the other hand, stoutly opposed to the submissions of the learned AR and argued stating that the reasons submitted by the assessee for non-production of details are vague and prima facie appear to be incorrect. He further, submitted that the appellant had not produced any evidence before the learned CIT(A) to establish that the deleted amounts pertained to the opening balance of loan. The learned DR further opposed to the suggestion of remitting back the matter to the file of the AO for re-examination because the matter pertains to the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 being too old matter for examining the bonafide of the creditors. He, therefore, prayed that the additions made by the learned AO may be s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee even at this stage could not furnish any explanation or justification for the expenses incurred for Rs.3,50,000/-. 13. We have heard both the parties. Even before us, nothing was brought forth to establish that the assessee had incurred expenses of Rs.3,50,000/-. Therefore, we hereby confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and the learned AO on this count. 14. Ground No.2 of the revenue s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 relates to the revenue being aggrieved on the admission of additional evidences by the learned CIT(A). The learned DR submitted that the assessee has not furnished any evidence to justify non-production of details before the learned AO though the same was furnished before the learned CIT(A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates