TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e parties, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce any confirmation even during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,63,750/- made by the A.O. on account of non confirmation of cash credits, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce any confirmation even during the course of appellate proceedings. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing officer framed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') at an income of Rs. 3,11,714/- after making additions of Rs. 24,453/- and Rs. 8,100/- on account of non confirmation of accounts with various partie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a copy of the same was given to the assessee to furnish its comments. The assessee submitted his rejoinder vide its letter dated 22.11.2013. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed a relief of Rs. 15,30,703/- to the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,06,003/-. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. Shri Sushil Kumar, Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the remand report submitted by the ITO, Ward-2, Panchkula dated 14.8.2013. In its report, the Assessing officer has categorically stated in para 2 of the report that assessee has not furnished the confirmations from the parties namely M/s Pandhi Scan Centre and others from whom advances have been claimed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 in the status of Firm. The notice u/s 143(2|/142(1) of the Act, issued on the same day and duly served upon the assessee on 16.7,2011. In response thereto Sh. Munish Mahendroo, C.A. attended the assessment proceedings on different dates and filed written submission. Books of accounts comprising cash book, ledger, stock Register, voucher of purchases and sales & expenses were produced which have been examined on test checked basis. The case was discussed in detail. The assessee has not furnished the confirmation of the following parties from whom advance has been claimed by the assessee in spite of repeated requests- i. M/s Pandhi Scan Centre Rs. 5,00,000 ii. Advance From customers Rs. 11,76,703 iii. Advance for spares Rs. 3,60,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....right to add back the cash credit amounting to Rs. 363750/- as unexplained. The assessment record of M/s. C Max Healthcare, #. 13, Sec-16, Panchkula for the AY 2009-10 is also enclosed herewith in one volume for necessary action. Yours faithfully Sd/- (ANITA SHARMA) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PANCHKULA End: As above" 6. From the above report, it is clear that the assessee did not furnish the confirmation letters from the concerned parties. It appears that assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the alleged additional evidence in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Sub Rule (2) provides that the CIT(A) while admitting such evidence must record its reasonin....