9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce in breach of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), deleting the addition of Rs.1,77,86,645/-? made on account of un-explained cash credits? (C) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs.1,70,11,830/-made in respect of un-explained cash credit in the name of Shri Hari Builders without considering the findings of the Assessing Officer recorded in the assessment order as well as in para-3.1.1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsion of the assessee, therefore, the present appeal by the Revenue raising afore-mentioned questions of law. 4. The first question pertains to admission of fresh evidence in breach of rule 46A of the Income Tax Act. We notice that the Tribunal has held there was no violation of rule 46A as remand report was obtained by CIT(Appeals) from the Assessing Officer. We could also notice from the record that fullest opportunity was made available to both the sides. This question therefore, requires no further consideration. 5. Question (B) and (C) require consideration together. On account of certain cash credits, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.3,54,70,163/-. Out of this total amount, aggregate amount of cash credit in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings, the AO was provided copy of the accounts of these parties, their names, and addresses, and their confirmation of the accounts. The assessee also provided PAN numbers of these persons along with the copy of bank statements. The amounts were received by account payee cheques. The AO in his remand proceedings was of the view that amount of Rs.1,76,83,518/- were not satisfactory explained by the assessee. The amounts included the sum of Rs.1,70,11,830/-. The learned CIT(A) however was of the view that since in respect of this amount the creditor has given his PA Number, confirmation and his bank statement, the deposit cannot be treated as unexplained. We also feel that since this amount has come to the assessee's account through bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent respondents. The Assessing Officer when added the entire amount, CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition by noting this : "8.2 I have considered the assessment order and the above submissions. From the submissions made before the A.O. and also before me it is found that the appellant has explained that the notings in these loose papers pertain to Satya Developers, the proprietry concern of Rakesh Thakkar and that transactions are recorded in the books of Satya Developers and Rakesh Thakkar individual, as the transactions are between those two entities. The assessing officer has made the presumption that the loose paper was found from the office premises of Dharam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
