9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that the sale proceeds of agricultural land belonging to mother of the assessee was received by the assessee in the absence of documentary evidence in the form of a will or gift deed etc. 4. That the appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee's Cross Objection read as under:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 6,20,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 58,00,000/- on account of deposits in bank account. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 6,20,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 58,00,000/- on account of deposits in bank account is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in observing that capital gain on sale of lands requires investigation and thereafter tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal. He further stated that on the basis of the AIR information, the AO called the explanation from the assessee regarding cash deposit of Rs. 63,45,000/- in the Bank account of the assessee, but in response to the same the assessee explained that Rs. 25,50,807/- is a withdrawal of cash; Rs. 34 lacs is a sale from ancestral agricultural land and Rs. 5.75 lacs as agricultural income. Ld. DR further stated that assesse has not filed any evidence supporting his explanation before AO and the AO has rightly made the addition of Rs. 58 lacs u/s. 69 of the Act and Rs. 2,93,691/- as income from other sources and completed the assessment. He further stated that in Appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in dispute by accepting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, despite the fact that none of the conditions laid in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 are applicable to the case of the assessee. He further stated that no opportunity. For verifying the additional evidence has been given to the AO by the Ld. CIT(A) and he has wrongly admitted the additional evidence and deleted the addition in dispute. He reque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence which ought to have been admitted ; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer] ; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the 8[Assessing Officer] has been allowed a reasonable opportunity (a) to examine the evidence or document or to crossexamine the witness produced by the appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the additional evidence which has not been properly confronted to the AO and opportunity of thoroughly examination of the same has also not been given by the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO. It is pertinent to mention here that the Revenue has raised 4 grounds of appeal challenging the impugned order and argued especially the ground no. 1 challenging the additional evidences filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings u/r. 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, but the assessee has not filed all the additional evidences i.e. 7 sale deeds of land from which the assesseee has received Rs. 52,07,500/- before this Bench. Assessee has also not filed any Remand Report dated 5.8.2013 for perusal of the Bench and taken the issue in dispute very lightly when the Department has challenged the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This Bench has right to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before Ld. First Appellate Authority which has not been filed by the assessee for supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
