9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/-, being share capital received from share-holders, under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. The first issue for consideration relates to rejecting the assessee s contention for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46-A of the Income-tax Rules. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee introduced share capital of Rs.25 lakhs in the name of four persons i.e. Veerbhadren Ch. Rs.5,00,000/-; Beena Shaji Rs.5 lakhs; Deepa S. Rs.5 lakhs; and Beni Prasad Ram Narain Rs.10 lakhs. The assessing officer asked the assessee to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of share applicants. The AO issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n held that on bare reading of Rule 46-A the assessee does not have right to file additional evidence unless his case falls within one of the situations prescribed under Rule 46-A. The discretion to permit the additional evidence lies with the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, it cannot be said that the ld. CIT (Appeals) is duty bound to admit any evidence that the assessee wishes to adduce, based on which he would conduct a de novo examination of the case before him. The ld. CIT (A) in view of decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court and the ITAT observed that the assessing officer from September, 2008 till issuance of order on 21st December, 2009 had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file necessary details, which have not been done by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supported the order of the assessing officer vehemently. 6. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. In the case before us it is a fact that the notices issued in case of one of the share applicants had been received back. One of the applicants had stated that she had not made any deposit in the company whereas no reply was received from two persons. It is also a fact that the assessing officer on receipt of reply or receipt of notice received un-served, no further opportunity was provided by him to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT (Appeals) should have admitted the additional evidence and adjudicated upon. We, therefore, admit the additional evidence and direct the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
