9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e revenue is in appeal before us against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III, Delhi dated 07.12.2011 passed for AY 2007-08. 2. The solitary grievance of the revenue is that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting Rs.10,48,340/- by entertaining the additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act Rules, 1962. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - S.No. Name of the Broker Amount in Rs. 1. Chaudhary Naresh & Co. 1,24,515/- 2. Global Avenues 1,23,464/- 3. Harmony Estates and Developers 1,74,060/- 4. Sahni & Associates 6,26,301/- The Ld. AO disallowed the claim of the assessee with respect to this amount and made an addition of Rs.10,48,340/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding recorded by the Ld. First Appellate Authority for admission of additional evidence is worth to note. It reads as under :- "In the remand report the AO has taken objection to admittance of additional evidence, on the ground that the assessee did not furnish the confirmation inspite of repeated opportunities. I have considered the objection of the AO but am of the view that in the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It is discernible from the remand report extracted by Ld. CIT(A) on page 19 of the order. Now, the only dispute remained before us is whether Ld. CIT(A) has rightly entertained the additional evidence or not? On perusal of the record, we find that AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) on 16.09.2009. He completed the assessment on 21.12.2009, meaning thereby the proceeding was alive only for a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
