TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al evidence produced by the assessee during the appellate proceedings in contravention of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. iii. On the facts and on the circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by learned CIT(A) is perverse both in facts and law. iv. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 2. The ground No.1 of the appeal was subsequently modified as under on 17/10/2016, for correcting the amount of excise duty payment, which Rs. 80,00,000/-, however, by mistake it was mentioned as Rs. 8,00,00,000/-in the original grounds: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,93,467/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank a/c Rs. 80,00,000/- on account of payment of excise duty Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of car, Rs. 28,32,259/- on account of unexplained investment in purchase of car, Rs. 28,32,259/- on account of business income made by the A.O. 2.1 The facts in brief of the case as culled out from the orders of the lower author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. CITA, who accepted such evidences in contravention of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 and allowed the relief to the assessee. In view of the arguments, he requested for restoring the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 3.2 We have heard the submission of the Ld. Senior DR and perused the relevant material on record, particularly the impugned order of the Ld. CIT-A. 4. In ground No. 2, the Revenue challenged admitting of additional evidences produced by the assessee during the first appellate proceeding. It is contended by the Ld. Senior DR that those additional evidences have been admitted in contravention of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. The Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962, reads as under: "[Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals) ]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the [Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of CIT Vs. Manish Build Well Private Limited, 45 CTR 397 (Delhi) observed that before admitting additional evidences, the learned CIT-A is required to give opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify those additional evidences and give his comments on merit. 4.4 In the instant case, we find that the Ld. CIT-A forwarded the additional evidences to the Assessing Officer, who sent a report to the Ld. CIT-A on 03/07/2013. The relevant para of the impugned order mentioning the facts in respect of remand report is reproduced as under: "4.2 the learned AR submitted that due to extreme financial difficulties and professional problems, the appellant had to leave his residence and therefore, he could not receive any of the notices issued by the AO. There was no willful disobedience or avoidance of the AO's notices on the part of the appellant. He was prevented by sufficient cause due to his circumstances and, therefore, he could not appeal before the AO. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 dt. 22.03.2013 for admittance of additional evidence. In the light of the submissions made by the learned AR, the additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, treated the cash deposits as explained and no adverse comments were given. These facts have not been disputed by the Ld. Senior DR. In our opinion, once the Assessing Officer himself has verified the source of the cash deposits with the books of accounts and found the same as explained, there should not have been any grievance to the Revenue. The Revenue has not pointed out before us any defect in the verification carried out with Assessing Officer or any malafide on the part of the authorities. In such circumstances, we do not find any justified reasons by the Revenue for filing appeal before us on the issue in dispute. Accordingly, we confirm the finding of the Ld. CIT-A on the issue in dispute. 6. On the issue of addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- deposited towards excise duty, the Assessing Officer observed deposit of the said amount with State Excise, Patiala. In view of no compliance, the Assessing Officer made the addition. Before the ld. CIT-A, on behalf of the assessee, it was explained that license fee of Rs. 79,50,000/- was paid by the AOP and it was duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the AOP. The Assessing Officer also verified from the books of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has explained the source of deposit of entire license fee of Rs. 3,30,16,69,936/- deposited by the AOP, which included the deposit of Rs. 79,50,000/-, and thus the deposit of amount of Rs. 79,50,000/-, claimed by the Assessing Officer towards the excise duty, stand explained. In our opinion, the order of the Ld. CIT-A on the issue in dispute is comprehensive and well reasoned and no interference on our part is required. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT-A on the issue in dispute. 7. In respect of addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- for unexplained investment in purchase of car, the Assessing Officer observed from the AIR information that the assessee purchased car valuing Rs. 20,00,000/- from Lali Motors, GT Road, Pragpur, Jalandhar. In view of no explanation of source of investment by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held the investment as unexplained. During first appellate proceedings, the assessee explained the same as Rs. 5.00 lakhs from own resources and balance Rs. 15 lakh out of loan taken from HDFC bank. During remand proceeding, the Assessing Officer verified these facts. In view of the verification by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT-A accepted the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that these purchases were actually made by the AOP M/s. Punjab Trading Associates and not by the appellant. However, as the liquor licenses on shops were allotted in the name of the appellant, PAN number of the appellant has been used instead that of the AOP, on which the appellant was a member. Therefore, the TCS credit has appeared in 26AS in the name of the appellant. The fact, however, remains that the TCS credit was never used by the appellant but was used by the AOP M/s. Punjab Trading Associates and this has been duly reflected in the return of income filed by the AOP. These transactions on purchases from various companies have been duly recorded by the AOP in its books of accounts. In support of the arguments, the complete set of audited accounts along with an affidavit stating that the above transactions have been duly recorded in the books of M/s. Punjab Trading Associates, which is assessed to tax at Amritsar. The AO has objected to the admittance of additional evidence, although, he acknowledged that these evidences have been placed on record and had been verified by him. He had also objected to the fact that the requisite Power of Attorney has not been submi....