9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecially when he had called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer. c). That the CIT(A) in a summary manner not considered the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Mukta Metal Works as reported in 336 ITR 555 and relied upon certain other judgments where the facts and circumstances were different. d). That the CIT(A) has failed to consider the fact that' the evidences as furnished by way of additional evidences were necessary for 'just decision' of the case. 3. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeals, the CIT (A) has erred in considering the issues on merits without taking into consideration the additional evidence and has erred in confirming the following additions:- a). Addition of Rs.6,99,980/- on account of difference in the account of M/s Dewan Steel Industries as per para 6.5 of the order. b). The CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the addition of Rs.30 lacs in respect of alleged unexplained difference in the account of M/s Regent Steel Industries as per para 7.3 of the order. c). The CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,68,412/-on account of G.P. Rate as per para 8.3 of the order. d). The CIT (A) has erred in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Rs.11,24,310/- for which no explanation was given by the assessee and the same was thus, added as income of the assessee. Further, in respect of the sundry creditors totaling Rs.12,43,54,396/- as on 31.3.2009, the assessee had furnished documents of the creditors but had not furnished their PAN numbers or where they were assessed. However, on 30.12.2011, the assessee filed copies of account of creditors as in the books of the assessee duly endorsed by the respective creditors but without any PAN numbers or Ward Nos., where assessed. The AO further forwarded the copies of account to the respective AOs for necessary verification. One such sundry creditor was M/s Diwan Steel Industries where credit of Rs.699,982/- was shown in the books of the assessee. However, in the books of account of the said part y, the account of the assessee reflected 'zero' balance. Similarly, in the case of M/s Regent Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, the assessee had shown credit balance of Rs.30 lacs as on 31.3.2009. However, the said part y in its books of account, reflected 'zero' balance. Both these amounts i.e. Rs.699,982/- and Rs.30 lacs were added as income of the assessee. Further, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nities to the assessee, who failed to appear before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and furnish the requisite details. Appl ying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CWT V Gurdial Singh 123 ITR 483 (Del), Segu Buchian Sett y 77 ITR 539 (S.C) and Miri Mal Mahajan 95 ITR 186 (P&H), the C IT(Appeals) observed as under :- "If the facts of the present case are analysed, it is absolutely clear that the Assessing Officer gave the assessee many opportunities to produce books of accounts and vouchers and other details. There was no response. The appellant did not reply even to the specific letters issued by the AO. The ratio of the above said judicial opinions is on all fours and applicable to the present case. The Assessing Officer has framed the assessment in a very judicious manner and not in arbitrary manner. The appellant does not deserve any relief in view of his recalcitrant and totally non-cooperative attitude. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, additional evidences filed by the appellant is not admitted. The case laws relied upon by the appellant pertain to the admission of additional evidences by the Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as additional evidence, which in-turn is placed at page 3 of the Paper Book. The ld. DR for the revenue pointed out that in addition to the entries relating to the parties, the assessee had reflected the VAT account at Rs.26924/- and closing stock at Rs.673094/- and such evidence being available with the assessee was withheld by the assessee and the same cannot be admitted under Rule 46A of IT Rules. It was further pleaded by the ld. DR for the revenue that the original balance-sheet filed by the assessee cannot be relied upon in view of the so called entries in the provisional balance sheet. The plea of the assessee that it is ready to produce books of account now was also objected to by ld. DR for the revenue as the assessee had failed to produce the original books of account before the AO during assessment proceedings. 11. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee vide ground No.2 is aggrieved by the non-admission of so called additional evidence under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. Rule 46A of the IT Rules provide as under:- "46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [or, as the case may be, the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the Assessing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal." 13. As per the first exception where any evidence was sought to be produced before the AO and the same has not been admitted by the AO, then such evidence can be produced by way of additional evidence before the CIT(Appeals). Admittedly, the assessee has to satisfy that it had the alleged evidence in its possession and wanted to produce the same before the AO. The next exception is in such cases where the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from producing such evidence, which has been called upon by the AO. The assessee in the given circumstances has to establish the reasonableness of his non- production of the evidence calle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under consideration had declared income from business and was statutorily required to maintain books of account. In order to establish its claim of the various receipts and expenditure during the year under consideration, the onus was upon the assessee to establish its claim by producing the books of account before the AO and also produce the relevant vouchers and bills in respect thereof. As pointed out in para 3 above, the assessee failed to comply to the various notices issued by the AO and even failed to reply with the show cause notice(s) issued by the AO from time to time. The AO had also obtained information in respect of certain sundry creditors and there was variance in the balances shown by the assessee and the balances shown in the account of the assessee in the books of account of the sundry creditors. The AO show caused the assessee to explain the differences, but except for filing the copy of the account in its books of account, no other exercise was made by the assessee to reconcile the difference or to offer any explanation. The perusal of the assessment order reflects that despite the non cooperative attitude of the assessee, the AO time and again issued various n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment proceedings, the same was now being produced by way of additional evidence, does not merit admission as the assessee has failed to establish the reasonableness of the evidence not being available during the course of assessment proceedings. Further the said evidence, otherwise also cannot be admitted as additional evidence because in the first instance, the assessee has failed to produce books of account before the AO during the assessment proceedings and the books of account now being sought to be produced are admittedly written by the assessee after the completion of the assessment proceedings as the assessee himself claims that it was not aware of the cash credit limit bank entries not being included in the hands of the assessee while preparing the original balance sheet. Further, perusal of the figures of application of the limit of cash credit raised by the assessee from the bank also includes sum of Rs.26924/- paid in the VAT account and further closing stock of Rs.673,094/-. The non inclusion of the entries very clearly establish that the original accounts prepared by the assessee were non-reliable and the same have justifiably been not accepted by the AO becau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aboratory and an affidavit dated 27.12.2004 of the searched person. However, in the facts of the present case, additional evidence is by way of books of account being re-written including certain entries relating to sundry creditors, closing stock and even VAT in the provisional balance sheet, which as per the assessee were prepared on the basis of the books of account now written and permission for producing the same was sought from CIT(Appeals) as additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules. The stand of the assessee in this regard is thus, dismissed. 19. Now coming to the alternate plea raised by the assessee by way of ground No.3 in relation to the additions made in the hands of the assessee on account of the difference in the account of M/s Diwan Steel Industries, M/s Regent Steel Industries and further addition made by rejecting the books of account and also disallowance of expenses. The assessee by way of ground No.4 agitates that the C IT(Appeals) had erred in not considering detailed submissions filed before him and also that the assessee was willing to produce the books of account to substantiate various submissions made. The AO during the course of assessment proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
