TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... style of M/s Swami Service Station, filed his return of income for the asst. year 2006-07 on 27/10/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,85,219/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on examination of the assessee's cash book observed that the assessee had introduced cash amounting to Rs. 31,00,000/- in his capital account on 5/4/2005 and required the assessee to explain the source thereof. Since no explanation was forthcoming, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act and brought the same to tax in the assessee's hands.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The fixations are going from 13-9-2010. The latest noncompliances of a consecutive nature are towards hearings fixed on 20-2-2013, 19-3-2013, 3-4-2013 and 30-5-2013. Yet, I also note that the details of the addition made as well as the proof of justification for delay were called for as early as 10-1-2012. 3. In the face of the continuing non-compliances on the part of the appellant, I am not able to adjudicate upon the grounds raised claiming the entry of Rs. 31,00,000/- into the cash book on 5-4-2005 to be out of explained sources. The claim of the amount having been accumulated out of funds in the appellant's HUF remains unsubstantiated in the course of the appellate proceedings in spite of more than adequate opportunities having been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs." 4. The grounds at SNo. 1 and 5 being general in nature, and not being urged before us, are dismissed as infructuous. 5. In Ground at SNo.5, the assessee has denied himself liable to be charged interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anjum Ghaswalla & Others in 252 ITR 1 (SC) and we, therefore uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in chargi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 6.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), submitting that the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity to present its case on the issue in appeal both before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A). The learned DR contended that the plea for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to represent its case at this stage was not justified. The learned DR also placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Anupam Kothari in ITA No.837/Bang/2012 dated 5/9/2014 and submitted that the assessee's plea for admission of additional evidence should not be entertained since the requirement of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules are not satisfied. 6.3.1 We ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for another opportunity to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We are inclined to allow the assessee another opportunity only because the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) due to the lack of evidence put forth by the assessee. The purpose of assessment is to determine the correct income of the assessee and we are of the view that the assessee has realized his errors and has attempted to file additional evidence before us in an attempt to show that he had sufficient sources to explain the capital introduced in the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the assessee must be afforded an opportunity to establish the same and not reject the said r....