9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in allowing the appeal of the assessee when the sale deeds and other documents, based on which the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, were produced before the CIT(A) but these documents were not produced before the A.O. and the CIT(A) did not provide any opportunity to the AO to examine the new evidence as required under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in allowing the sum of Rs. 2,93,75,000/- as purchases, when for A.Y. 2012-13 there are no trading receipts in the Profit and Loss account, and thus the finding of CIT(A) that the profit on sale of such purchases accepted by the A.O. is factually incorrect." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contended that the payments are made through cheques and bank accounts statement were furnished. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the submissions made by the assessee. The A.O. disallowed the expenses of Rs. 2,93,75,000 and brought the same to tax. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer in bring to tax the sum of Rs. 2,93,75,000 reads as follow:- "4.6 The assessee firm has executed the residential project "Gokulam Garden" and as per the agreement got 40% of the developed project as it share. The assessee now claims that additional expenditure had been incurred for purchase of the sites from the owner of land on which the project was developed. The assessee has not furnished any details as to which were the sites that were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an opportunity to substantiate the claim which the assessee has failed to do so. It is an accepted principle that the onus to prove any claim made is first on the assessee. Here the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof and established the claim beyond doubt." 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order in making disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,93,75,000, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced joint development agreement dated 07.03.2008, registered sale deed, which the assessee had entered with the third person, etc. It was contended before the first appellate authority that the amount paid to the land owner has been accounted for as additional c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n what was the consideration received and profits earned from it. Before the A.O. the assessee has not furnished even a single sale document to establish that it had sold some of the sites which had purchased from land owner (for which additional consideration has been paid). Admittedly, the sale deeds to third parties were produced for first time before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceeding had not called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and has decided the issue in favour of the assessee without giving opportunity to the A.O. to rebut the additional evidence produced before him. 7.1 The prescription of Rule 46A is clear. The assessee is ordinarily not entitled to produce additional evidence befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
