9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) can grant relief on the basis of the documents, which has not been verified by the Ld. AO neither been placed before the Ld. CIT(A) as per the statement made by the appellant in their submissions itself against the remand report filed by the Ld.AO. Now, merely because the books of accounts have been subjected to tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act and the Auditor had certified the books of accounts to be in order, the contention made by the assessee cannot be stated to be full proof. In that view of the matter, we do not find the impugned order deleting addition made by the Ld.AO to be justified. For the ends of justice, as we have already discussed above that the issue has not been verified by the Ld.AO properly, the same is required to be verified afresh by the Ld.AO on the basis of the documents as mentioned by him in its remand report dated 05.05.2017. We set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remitting the issue to the file of the Ld.AO to consider the same afresh upon taking into consideration the evidence to be adduced by the assessee as mentioned hereinabove and upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld.AO is directed to pass a reasoned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough 3 proprietorship firms namely M/s Innotex Solution, M/s Inspiration M/s Lotus Trading. The appellant booked loss under three of its concerns, the details of which are as under Particulars of Proprietorship Concern Loss (Rs.) Pg. M/s Innotex Solution 423098 10 M/s Inspiration 4754032 11 M/s Lotus Trading 297607 12 Total 5474737 And after transferring the said loss to the individual balance sheet of the appellant the loss was worked out at Rs.52,74.176/-. However inadvertently, the return preparer uploaded wrong information and declared profit at Rs.2,09.504/- which was the job work income in the individual account of the appellant. (Please refer page no. 32 vis a vis 13 of the P/B.). And after claiming deduction u/s 80C of the Act, the income was declared at Rs. 1,79,504/-. Learned AO vide AIR information received information that the appellant has deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aram Veerasinghaiah Co. vs. CIT, reported in (1980) 123 ITR 457 (SC) Hon ble High Courts in CIT vs. K. S. M. Guruswamy Nadar Sons., reported in (1984) 149 ITR 127 (MAD), CIT vs. Ram Sanehi Gian Chand (1972) 86 ITR 7224 (P H), Pioneer Publicity Corpn. Ors. DCIT, reported in (2000) 67 TTJ 471 (Delhi). 6. A remand report dated 05.05.2017 was sought for by the Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of the evidences placed before the First Appellate Authority. Finally, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.5,10,00,700/- with the following observations: 2.3. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case, remand report and the submissions of the appellant. On verification of AIR/GIB information, cash deposits totaling to Rs.5,10,00,700/-, in as much as 107 entries, were found in the bank account of the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to explain such entries. The appellant vide letter dated 30/03/2015 filed a reply along with relevant documents claiming such receipts as business receipts frorn_4_of_jtr proprietorship concern wherein he suffered a net loss out of its business activity. However, as the submissions were filed at the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions Inspiration as per letter filed on 30.03.2015 (Pages 29- 136/PB). The appellant has explained his business at PP 137-139/PB which indicates his urge to do business at large scale from the beginning of his life as entrepreneur. The perusal of this document enclosed with the letter dated 30.03.2015 shows candid confession on the part of young entrepreneur about the tax implications therefore, intention of the appellant cannot be doubted. The enclosures to the letter dated. 30.03.2015 have not been appreciated in the order dated 30.03.2015. After considering all the facts including remand report dated 05.05.2017 both on technical and merits and circumstances of the case, the additional evidence submitted by the appellant is admitted as there was a reasonable cause for not producing the evidences before the AO and the same is considered necessary to go to the root of the controversy involved. Therefore, same are admitted for adjudication to provide natural justice to appellant and such admission is supported by following case laws: - Kamlaben S Bhatti 44 Taxman.com 459 (Guj.) - Dharmamdev Finance Pvt Limited 43 taxman.com 395 (Guj:). - ACIT VS Jogindersingh (ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore us being part of the paper book alongwith bank statements. The audit report was also placed on record on 30.03.2015 which has been noted by the Ld.AO at Page No.3 of the order passed by him. The individual balance sheet as well as P L Account of the assessee and three above referred concerns at page Nos. 34 35 in respect of the assessee, page Nos. 47 to 54 in respect of Lotus Trading, page Nos. 62 to 69 in respect of M/s. Innotex Solution and page Nos. 89 to 112 in respect of M/s. Inspiration of the paper book filed before us, reveal that there is several credit and job entries from time-to-time which has sought to be claimed to be approved of carrying out the business during the year under consideration of the assessee. 7.2 We have also perused the remand report. The Ld. AO in its remand report objected mainly on four counts: (i) The appellant has not maintained sales/purchase registers; (ii) The appellant has not purchase/sales invoice; (iii) The appellant had no transportation details/delivery challan; (iv) The appellant did not file suits instituted against him by the creditors. On the other hand, it is the case of the assessee that the details were furnished before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
