TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opers, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 31.7.2009 declaring income of Rs. 21,53,140. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was subsequently concluded under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.26.12.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 56,53,140 as against the returned income of Rs. 21,53,140. This was in view of the Assessing Officer treating the alleged loans received from the following four persons as unexplained cash credits on the grounds that the identity and credit worthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions had not been established :- (i) Abu Bakar : Rs.10,00,000. (ii) Zoheb Ur Reh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not bound to prove sources of source. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition without appreciating evidences were produced to prove the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the loan creditors. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the evidences and documents were produced in proper prospective manner and its entirety. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68, though the loans were received through proper banking channel and the appellant submitted the PAN and assessing autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 131 of the Act to the four persons directing them to produce their returns of income for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 and bank statements, which were furnished before her. It is contended that the order of assessment indicated that details in this regard were admittedly filed by three of these persons directly before the Assessing Officer, inter alia, by the Mr. Abu Bakar, Mr.Zoheb ur Rehman and Mr.Ateeq confirming that their loans were advanced to the assessee by cheques. In the case of Mr.Sawanth Shetty, the summons issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 131 of the Act was returned unserved. The learned Authorised Representative contends that the Assessing Officer brushed aside whatever evidences were placed before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the learned CIT (Appeals) was erroneous. The record clearly indicates that while the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce certain details, the Assessing Officer had also directly called for information under Section 131 of the Act, which were filed in the case of 3 parties, with one summons in the case of Mr. Sawanth Shetty being returned unserved. The Assessing Officer by virtue of the principles of natural justice ought to have put the assessee on notice, by way of a show cause notice, before coming to an adverse finding in the matter. A plain reading of the order of assessment would clearly establish that no such opportunity was afforded to the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative submits that it was in view of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons (details at para 5.1.1 supra). It appears while some of the details called for from the assessee were filed, the Assessing Officer, simultaneously also issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the four persons directing them to produce certain details. In the case of 3 parties Mr. Abu Bakar, Mr. Zoheb ur Rehman and Mr. Ateeq, the details called for appear to have been placed before her and also confirming that the loans were advanced by cheque to the assessee. In the case of the fourth person, namely, Sri Sawanth Shetty, the summons issued was returned unserved. It appears from the order of assessment that, on an appraisal of the material before her at this stage, the Assessing Officer was not inclined to accept the genuinene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the facts of the matter, i.e. that the assessee was provided adequate opportunity by the Assessing Officer; declined to admit the additional evidence sought to be admitted U/R 46A of the Rules. In the factual matrix of the case, as discussed above, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from presenting the details, sought to be filed and admitted as additional evidence, since it had no opportunity to do so before the Assessing Officer and was not allowed to do so before the learned CIT (Appeals). We, therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, admit the additional evidence, filed by the assessee as per pages 1 to 45 of Paper Book filed before the Bench on 17.6.2015, for consideratio....