TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 706
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred both in law and on facts of the case in admitting fresh/additional evidence regarding cash credits and accepting the same without giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the AO." 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against the deletion of addition made under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 50,51,650. The grievance of the Revenue is against the admission of fresh/additional evidence regarding the cash credits, without giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the AO. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the case was completed ex parte under s. 144 of the Act as despite several notices of hearing issued to the assessee, none attended the assessment proceedings. The AO noted the assessee to have received loans of Rs. 50,61,650 i.e., Rs. 72,000 from Mrs. Pritpal Kaur and Rs. 49,79,650 from Shri Reetinder Sidhu. As the assessee had failed to furnish the evidence in respect of the said fresh loans received during the year, the same were treated as unexplained income of the assessee under s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was explained by the learned Authorised Represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact that no notice or any questionnaire could be served directly upon the appellant since nobody was there at the last known address. In this report, the AO has further stated that from the evidence filed by the appellant in the shape of passport of Smt. Pritpal Kaur showing that she had left for USA, and further evidence relating to her medical treatment in USA and also other relevant information, it appears that Smt. Pritpal Kaur was not in India when the case was taken up for hearing. The AO further reported that it appeared that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing any information before him. However, he further mentioned in this report that the issue of admission of additional evidence might be decided on merit for the sake of justice. 5. In view of the report of the AO that there was sufficient cause in not filing any information during the course of assessment proceedings as from the evidence filed by the assessee. It appeared that Smt. Pritpal Kaur was not in India when the case was taken up for hearing, it was held by the CIT(A) that admittedly the notices issued by the AO fixing up the case at different times were not complied with Smt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Pritpal Kaur was in turn received from her son were invested in FDRs and later on out of encashment of the FDRs received the amounts were advanced to the company. It was also explained that the amounts received from Smt. Pritpal Kaur was later on returned back to his son after her death. It was claimed that the assessee having received the amounts from the director stands explained and even the source of source has been explained. The confirmation of Smt. Pritpal Kaur along with the source from where the amounts were advanced were furnished before the CIT(A). 9. The CIT(A) on consideration of the records, admitting the additional evidence further observed as under:- "The learned counsel for the appellant has sought to explain these credits on the basis of additional evidence which has been admitted under r. 46A of the IT Rules, 1962 as mentioned above. All the evidence which is admitted as additional evidence was also forwarded to the AO. With regard to the merits of such additional evidence, the AO, in his report dt. 20th Feb., 2007 has mentioned that the same is a question of appreciation of facts. The additional evidence, is therefore, being considered acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther documents filed. Shri Reetinder Sidhu is shown to be carrying on business in USA and he is stated to have opened even an outlet namely "Pizza Hut" and also carrying on his independent business. Therefore, the identity of Shri Reetinder Sidhu, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, is beyond any doubt. From the vary fact that he had been carrying on business in USA for the last 20 years, his capacity is also proved. The evidence filed in the shape of copies of cheques and bank drafts and copy of bank account of Smt. Pritpal Kaur further confirms without any doubt that it was the money sent by Shri Reetinder Sidhu from USA which was deposited in the bank account of Smt. Pritpal Kuar. Though the amounts having been deposited in the account No. 24202 of Smt. Pritpal Kaur, were stated to be first invested in FDRs and later on out of encashment of FDRs the same was advanced to the appellant, the fact remains that this is the same money which was received by her from her son and from no one other than her son Shri Reetinder Sidhu. Smt. Pritpal Kaur is stated to have expired subsequently and major part of this amount is shown to be returned by the appellant to her son Shri Ree....