TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue and the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The Revenue in ITA No. 1818/PN/2013 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits of the assessee in Bank of Maharashtra. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting this addition on the basis of additional evidence without recording any reasons for the admission of the same as per Rule 46A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and without specifying the circumstances as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue and the assessee are in appeal against the order of CIT(A) and we proceed to decide both appeals after hearing the learned Authorized Representatives. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the present case, during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was a salaried person and had derived income from salary from FCm Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. From the perusal of the bank account with the ABN Amro Bank, the Assessing Officer noted that sum of Rs. 29,39,000/- was deposited by the assessee. Further, sum of Rs. 26,42,000/- was deposited in savings account with Bank of Maharashtra during the year. The assessee tried to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank accounts. The assessee explained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of deposit of cash was only make believe story and in the absence of any strong evidence, the genuineness, capacity and creditworthiness of the persons, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation filed by the assessee. Consequently, sum of Rs. 29,39,500/- deposited in the ABN Amro Bank was treated as deposits out of income from unexplained sources under section 68 of the Act. Similarly, the cash deposited in the joint bank account in the names of assessee and Ms. Michelle Peter Tolster with Bank of Maharashtra amounting to Rs. 31,01,100/- was also treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 8. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished similar explanation along with some documentary evidence, were filed and the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich as per the assessee, was bad in law. Further, the grievance of the assessee is that the said addition was made without considering the documentary evidence submitted before the Assessing Officer and without allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thus, violated the principles of natural justice. Further, the assessee before us has filed an application for admission of additional evidence with regard to the amounts received in cash from his father to the extent of Rs. 12,75,000/- as gift and further Rs. 7,25,000/- received from Ms. Sangita Sharma to be invested with Aurum Realty Ltd. The claim of the assessee before us is that the confirmation letters from both these persons were submitted. However, the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the absence of sufficient opportunity being not allowed by the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid addition was made in the hands of assessee. 10. The Revenue is in appeal against the deletion of addition to the tune of Rs. 19,50,000/- on the surmise that the additional evidence has been considered by the CIT(A) without conforming to the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record and also the evidences filed by the assessee in the Paper Book and also before the CIT(A). The assessee before us is aggrieved by the orders of authorities below in not allowing sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence and also by nonappreciation of evidences filed by him from date to date. The peru....