9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF was accepted by him merely on the basis of the submission of the assessee that the HUF is regularly assessed to tax without there being any documentary evidence to support and substantiate the claim of the assessee that the amount of ₹ 5,32,930 was actually received from the HUF and that the same was duly reflected in the accounts of HUF. As rightly contended by the learned D.R., the HUF is a separate entity, different from the assessee and therefore, the onus is on the assessee to explain the source of capital claimed to be funds received from the HUF on evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us has not disputed this position. He, however, has contended that one more opportunity may be given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee from the relevant facts and figures that the entire amount in question payable to the 13 creditors was actually paid by the assessee in the subsequent years showing the existence of the said creditors on 31st March, 2007. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.224/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - Shri P. M. Jagtap And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajat Mitra For the Respondent : Mr. S. Rama Rao ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Vijayawada dated 14.12.2012 whereby he deleted the additions of ₹ 5,32,930 and ₹ 40,95,286 made by the A.O. on account of unexplained inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon by him to furnish all the relevant details such as full names and postal addresses of the concerned 13 creditors aggregating to ₹ 40,95,286. As noted by the A.O. in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263, the assessee however, did not furnish the postal addresses of the concerned creditors despite having been given sufficient opportunity in this regard. The A.O. therefore was left with no option but to treat the 13 creditors aggregating to ₹ 40,95,286 as unproved and made an addition of ₹ 40,95,286 on this issue to the total income of the assessee. The assessee also could not substantiate before the A.O. the source of investment of ₹ 5,23,930 made in the capital account sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be accepted. The explanation being in order, the same is accepted and accordingly the A.O. is directed to delete the same. 4B. So far as the second addition under the head sundry creditors at ₹ 40,95,286 is concerned the A.O. has subjected such items to addition with reference to those parties whose details were not produced to the A.O. on one hand and on the other hand, where details were produced, some of the letters written to such parties were returned un-served and the things like that. In course of appellate proceedings, the AR has submitted that balances of such sundry creditors outstanding as on 31st March, 2007, were paid in the subsequent years. some payments were made through cheques or DDs and some are through cash. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not furnished even addresses in respect of eight creditors. e. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that when the genuineness of credits itself is not established how he could believe that credit is squared up in subsequent years. f. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in admitting fresh evidence, which is not submitted before the A.O. at the time of scrutiny, even though several opportunities were given ? g. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in adjudicating the matter based on the fresh material evidence produced for the first time before the CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the A.O. as per Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. h. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F on evidence. Having regard to the facts of the case, we consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice, to give such opportunity to the assessee and since the learned D.R. has also not raised any objection in this regard, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh, after giving the assessee an opportunity to establish the source of capital claimed to be funds received from HUF on evidence. Ground Nos. a and b of Revenue appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. As regards the common issue involved in ground Nos. c to g relating to deletion by the Ld. CIT(A) of the addition of ₹ 40,95,286 made by the A.O. on account of unproved creditors, it is observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
