9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (wrongly mentioned as 15,00,000) u/s. 68 of the Act w.r.t. procurement of accommodation entries through share application money from non-descript companies. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in deleting an addition of Rs. 75,000/- made by the AO w.r.t. commission paid @ 5% for procurement of accommodation entries through share application money from non-descript companies. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts." 2. The assessee has also challenged the impugned order in its cross objection on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, relying on various decisions and other attending facts of the case, concluded that source of share application money and existence of share applicants could not be properly explained and thus, a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act treating the same as accommodation entry received by the assessee in the form of share application money. The AO further made addition of Rs. 75,000/- on account of commission paid on procuring such accommodation entries. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the assessments of six share applicants out of eight and also that there is no evidence found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that in the search cases, additions can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search, the additions so made by AO have rightly been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has collected the information about share application money from the books of accounts of assessee and balance sheet. It was also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) should have also deleted the addition on further ground that there was no pending assessment proceeding on the date of search which could be abated under second proviso to section 153A(1). The AO, therefore, was not justified in making addition on the basis of material gathered in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidences u/s. 46A. The impugned order shows that the ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report of the AO, but we do not find in the impugned order as to what was the rebuttal or contention of the Assessing Officer in the said remand report on admission of additional evidence, whatsoever, submitted before the ld. CIT(A). The remand report of the AO is also not available on record before us to decide the issue of admissibility of additional evidences filed before the ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after making proper examination of records in the light of observations made above. Needless to say, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
