9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of documents at the time of assessment proceedings. - assessee was quite amenable to reinforce its claim, but was prevented by factors beyond its control. The assessee produced documents as soon as they were made available to it by the lender. The assessee also made effort to produce the Director of the lending company, who has supported the case of assessee. In our considered opinion, the file needs revisit to the A.O. The Assessing Officer shall take into consideration all the relevant documents produced by the assessee to support its contentions and after considering the same, shall pass a fresh order on the issue, in accordance with law. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2153/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected to the admission of the documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(Appeals) accepted the objections raised by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order. Now, the assessee has come in second appeal assailing the findings of the CIT(Appeals). 3. Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that assessee had received share application money from M/s Kempoo Exports Pvt. Ltd., which was shown as unsecured loan in the assessment year under consideration. Sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Assessing Officer to produce confirmation letter from the Director of M/s Kempoo Exports Pvt. Ltd. Since, the Director of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee was not able to produce documents before assessing authority to support its contentions. The assessing authority made addition of ₹ 88,00,000/- in the income returned by the assessee, as unproved creditors. The contention of ld. counsel for the assessee is that at that time, the Director of the lending company was not available, therefore, confirmation letter could not be produced before the A.O. The assessee had produced audited financial records for the financial year ending on 31.03.2007 and on 31.03.2008 along with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
