2014 (8) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itting the additional evidence in contraventions of Rule 46A without giving an opportunity to the AO. 2. Deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lacs as made under the head income from other sources in which assessee sold the jewellery to six different jewelers and deposited in her Bank Account as cash and then the same was transferred to mother's account on same date. Ignoring the fact that the assessee was given many opportunities and he failed to prove the genuineness of the sale transactions and also failed to explain as to how the jewellery were sold at Jaipur and Mumbai on the same day, moreover notice u/s 133(6) returned back unserved. The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the grounds of appeal" 3. Brief....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te to decide the appeal of the revenue and C.O. of the assessee after hearing ld. DR of the revenue and we proceed to decide the cases accordingly. 6. Apropos ground raised by the revenue, we have hard arguments of ld. DR and carefully perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) admitted and considered additional evidence of the assessee in contravention of Rule 46A without confronting the same to the AO and without giving an opportunity to the AO to comment on additional evidence. The DR further contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10 lakh as made under the head 'income from other sources' in which the assessee sold jewellery to six different jewellers and depos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deleted." 8. In view of above, we observe that on verification of bank statement of the assessee and her mother, the CIT(A) reached to a conclusion that the facts are clear from the statement itself as the transaction happened on the very same date. The CIT(A) has also held that the assessee has also produced confirmation from the same parties to whom jewellery was sold. In view of that the transactions entered were held to be genuine. The CIT(A) also pointed out that the AO should have taken help of local ITO/Inspector to strengthen his action but the AO failed to do so. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not found to be sustainable and the same was deleted by accepting explanation of the assessee. We are unable to see any infi....