9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer under sub-rule(3) for verification. Thus, after calling of the remand report on merit as contemplated in subrule( 3) to Rule 46A, the Learned CIT(Appeals) is precluded with his discretion for refusing to admit the additional evidence. Since the Assessing Officer in his remand report had accepted the three deposits amounting to 14,34,271 in total, the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in upholding the same. The same is thus directed to be deleted. So far as the balance deposit of 3,07,011 is concerned, the explanation of the assessee remained that this amount was coming from last year debtors and it was accepted by the Assessing Officer. We find that in its remand report, the Assessing Officer had not accepted this ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sits - opening balance deposited in his S/B account with Axix Bank Ltd.). Since the assessee failed to explain the source of deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 20,19,609 under sec. 68 of the Act as unexplained credits. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has upheld the same. 4. In support of the grounds, the Learned AR submitted that assessee, an individual is engaged in the trading of plastic injections molding machines and allied products. The assessee has been suffering from sever diseases due to which he failed to coordinate with his chartered accountant and the documents could not be placed before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Since the assessee was having explanation of the source of the depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Dhanna Ram Garg vs. ITO - ITA No.2216/Del/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07) - order dated 12.8.2011. The Learned AR also referred page Nos. 1 to 45 of the paper book i.e. copies of remand report of the Assessing Officer dated 12.3.2012, second remand report of the Assessing Officer dated 23.5.2012, copy of reply of the assessee to the remand report dated 23.5.2012 vide letter dated 8.6.2012 with relevant annexures, an application for additional evidences furnished under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 . 5. The learned Senior DR on the other hand placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below with the submission that the onus lies upon the claimant to establish genuineness of its claim to which assessee has failed to. There was no suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) order. 3. Cash received from staff 76,085 Details were not asked for by the A.O. however the assessee furnished before the CIT(A). 4. Loan from ING Vasya Bank 1,45,885 Accepted by the A.O. 5. Amount received from Ashok Kumar 1,50,000 Amount was received via account payee cheque. Details, such as pan card and Adhar card were submitted before the CIT(A). 6. Amount received from sale and maintenance 7,63,386 In respect of this amount it is submitted that this amount is emanating from current business receipts. The Ld. A.O. accepting the closing balance of current year debtors added this amount under sec. 68 which is not permissible. No adverse comment has been made by the A.O. in remand report see page No. 5 of the P.B. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not admitted the additional evidence. Regarding the cash received from the sale and maintenance (Rs.7,63,386), interest paid by Bank (Rs.901), the Learned CIT(Appeals) has mentioned that no comments have been given by the Assessing Officer. He has further noted that since he was not admitting the additional evidence filed, he confirmed the addition of ₹ 7,63,386 and ₹ 901. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has made these comments after considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and reply filed by the assessee thereto at page Nos.8 & 9 of the First Appellate Order. Thus, we find that the Learned CIT(Appeals) was satisfied with the report of the Assessing Officer regarding the explanation of the assessee about the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,45,885 Loan from ING Vaisya Bank 10. The Learned CIT(Appeals) has, however, not accepted the above explanation even ignoring the remand report on the basis that the additional evidences filed by the assessee are not admissible since the reasons of sufferings with disease by the assessee was not acceptable as the assessee was assisted with his counsel appearing before Learned CIT(Appeals) and that the period of illness of the assessee was not matching with the period of assessment proceedings. In view of the above cited decisions by the Learned AR, we are of the view that after filing the additional evidence and Learned CIT(Appeals) took step provided in sub-rule(3) to Rule 46A of the Incometax Rules giving an inference that the additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
