TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rule 46A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- out of addition of Rs. 7,55,14,200/- being unexplained receipts, admitting fresh evidences without giving the AO an opportunity, violating norms of Rule 46A. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in admitting fresh evidences without giving the AO an opportunity, violating norms of Rule 46A. The procedure followed by CIT(A) is not correct." Thus in all the grounds, the revenue has challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A), mainly on the ground that there is a violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of builders and developers. The assessing officer received information through AIR, wherein it was reported that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 4.50 crore on 12.07.2006 with Joint Sub-registrar office Kurla. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee explained that it has not deposited any cash of Rs. 4.50 crores with the Sub-registrar. In support, the assessee filed copy of registered document and relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount in the cash column. It is further clarified by the Registrar that the amount of Rs. 4.50 Crore was paid by cheque and the same appears in the sale document. The AIR details submissions and the supporting documents are perused. I find from the AIR details that the code of 001 is wrongly mentioned against the entry of Rs. 4.50 Crore. The code 001 is actually meant for cash deposits into savings bank account above Rs. 1 Lac. I also find from the documents that the sale deed is dated 12/06/06 and the same is registered on 12/07/06. Also the amount is duly accounted for in the books. I therefore come to the conclusion that, the addition of Rs. 4.50 Crore is uncalled for and unjustified. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the addition. The ground is allowed." 5. As regard 2nd and 3rd addition, it was explained by the assessee that, the transaction represented registration of sale documents in respect of nine flats sold by the assessee and there was no purchase transaction as wrongly understood by the AO. On this issue also, the assessee furnished the confirmation letter from the Sub-registrar. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the said addition after observing and holding as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o sought any clarification. The assessee had no option, but to obtain the clarification and confirmation from the Sub-registrar. It was in this background and clarification given by the Sub-registrar, the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition. It is not a case of violation of Rules 46A, because the AO has refused to perform his duty of carrying out investigation/inquiry necessary for the assessment and has also failed to consider the evidences filed by the assessee before him. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant finding given by the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A) and also the material placed on record. All the additions have been made by the AO based on uncorroborated AIR informations. Once such an information was confronted to the assesse, the assessee had duly clarified and explained the entries and the nature of transactions duly supported by books of accounts. Once the assessee has resulted the information, the onus was upon the assessing officer to prove that assessee's explanation and evidences are untenable. The AO has failed to discharge his onus. As regards the addition of Rs. 4.50 crores, the assesse has categorically submitted that the payment regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised following as additional ground in the cross objection. "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,06,566/- being the interest earned on the fixed deposit made out of corpus/proposed society funds which funds do not belong to the assessee company and which funds are held by the assessee company in fiduciary capacity." 14. Brief facts are the issue involved is that, on perusal of the TDS certificates filed along with the return of income, the AO noted that the assesse has received interest of Rs. 3,94,98,940/- from the various banks, but has only offered sum of Rs. 3,88,18,540/-. The AO considering the assessee's clarification, noted that the amount of Rs. 4,06,566/- was on account of interest received on account fixed deposits of society which has not been offered for income. It was explained by the assessee that it had collected maintenance charges as a corpus fund, which was kept as FDRs. Any interest is accrued and does not belong to the assessee and it is not an income of the assessee. The explanation of the assesse that the interest income does not belong to it, was rejected by the AO and accordingly the amount was added t....