9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Law and in fact in admitting Additional Evidence and since your Appellant has complied with all requirement of Rule 46A the CIT(A) ought to have admitted the same. II. Without prejudice to above your Appellant further submit that: (1) The CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,50,000/- out of Rs. 32,00,000/- added by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that Sec.68 does not apply to the facts of the case and your Appellant have discharged the onus as required under the Law with regard to the deposit of Rs. 16,50,000/- made by Shri Satish R. Shah and Rs.9,00,000/-made by Shri K. Laxmanbhai. It is submitted by your Appellant the above two creditors are duly assessed to Income Tax, their identity and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Your Appellant submits that the Assessment Order dated 29-3- 2014 is bad in Law and void ab initio since the same is passed on Saturday being a Holiday in Income-tax Department and therefore such order is in violation of Sec. 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and therefore Void ab initio . 3. Your Appellant also submits that in view of facts and circumstances and the Assessment Order passed by Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1) dated 29-3-2014 being Void entire proceedings there under including the Tax Demand of Rs. 24,77,260/- be held invalid and cancelled. It is therefore submitted that relief claimed above be allowed and the order of the Assessing Officer be modified accordingly. Your Appellant reserves right to add, alter, amend to withd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng deduction under section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act. 5. In appeal, the assessee made a request to file additional evidence in the form of bank statements of unsecured creditors, their returns of income for relevant assessment years in order to establish identity, creditworthiness of the unsecured loans taken. Further, the assessee also sought to produce bills/certificates of the M/s Rudra building construction Company to establish that the assessee had completed construction of the house within the permissible time limit so as to be eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(Appeals) rejected assessee's request for admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has refused to admit additional evidence, which ought to have been admitted in the instant set of facts in the interest of justice. 7. In response, the Ld. DR relied upon the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appeal order. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In our considered view, it is established law that in appropriate circumstances/cases, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) should admit additional evidence in the interest of justice, in case the filing of such evidence goes to the root of the matter and is essential to establish the justification/genuineness of the claim of the assessee. Further, we also observe that in the case of Tarun Manmohan Garg v DCIT in ITA nu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
