9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. 3. On ground Nos. 1 and 2, the assessee challenged the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in not admitting the additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and confirming the addition of Rs. 35 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act was conducted on October 8, 2010, in the Chauhan group of cases. The assessee filed return of income under section 139 of the Income-tax Act on October 10, 2008, showing a total income of Rs. 14,43,163. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 153A of the Act and the assessee, in response th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the additional documents were absolutely necessary for adjudication of the case and that the same were not available with him at the time of completion of the assessment which was, therefore, sufficient cause for non-production before the Assessing Officer. The additional evidences sought to be admitted in respect of both the creditors were their copies of permanent account number card, bank account statement and confirmatory letters. 5(i) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee attended the proceedings before Assessing Officer and original return was filed in October, 2008, and return under section 153A was filed in September, 2012, therefore, the assessee had sufficient time to file the evidence befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing these vital and necessary documents before the Assessing Officer, therefore, additional evidences should have been admitted by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He has submitted that since loans have been taken through banking channel, therefore, no addition should be made against the assessee. 6(i) On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee failed to comply with rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, therefore, additional evidences were correctly rejected by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He has submitted that the assessee, who was in appeal before the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes to the root of the matter. The Assessing Officer also asked the assessee to produce these evidences at the assessment stage in order to discharge the burden upon the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 133 (SC) ; [2013] 262 CTR (SC) 118 held that, "Additional evidences admitted as relevant and required to be looked into by the authorities below". The same view is taken by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Mukta Metal Works [2011] 336 ITR 555 (P&H). 8(i) Since additional evidences are relevant and goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) should have admitted the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l evidences admitted above, with direction to the assessee to produce copies of these additional evidences before the Assessing Officer for final determination of the issue on the merits. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. On ground No. 3, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 5,50,000 on account of agricultural income. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has shown the agricultural income of Rs. 58,384 under section 139 of the Act but in the return filed under section 153A, the assessee had shown the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43,163. The same total income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act on September 5, 2012. The assessee failed to explain how the assessee could have substituted the agricultural income in return filed under section 153A of the Act by increasing the agriculture income. It is an afterthought story created by the assessee after search is conducted in the case of the assessee. The agriculture income declared by assessee now have not been supported by any evidence or material on record and no plausible explanation have been filed why additional agriculture income of Rs. 5,50,000 was not shown in the return of income filed under section 139 of the Act. The assessee never filed any revised return to claim higher agricultur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
