TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....layed by 22 days. It is further submitted that age of my father is above 80 years. His health is not well since March 2016 and therefore, he is bed ridden. He is staying in Udaipur right now and I have to frequently visit Udaipur to take care of him. As the health issue of my father occupied my mind, the time limit of filing the appeal skipped my attention. I therefore, make a humble prayer that on account of the above reason delay in filing appeal may please be condoned. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji[1987]167 ITR 471 (SC) (ii) M/s. GMG Engineer Industries vs Issa Green Power Solution (Civil Appeal No.4473/2015) with A.C. Govindaraj and Ors vs M. Krishnamoorthy & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.4473/2015): '' To this effect, the assessee has also filed the affidavit giving the reason for such delay in late filing the appeal before ITAT. 2.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, Affidavit of the assessee and also the case laws (supra), it is observed that there is sufficient cause in preventing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant being in the nature of accommodation entries. It has further been submitted that if the share applicant companies have provided accommodation entries to one does not necessarily imply that accommodation entries have also been provided to the appellant. A perusal of the statements of Shri S.N. Gadia and Smt. Laitha Chauhan shows that the modus operandi of these companies was to collect cash, deposit the cash in the personal bank accounts directors, employees or known persons; thereafter issue the cheques in the name of M/s. Convient Housing Finance Ltd. and M/s. Mewad Equipment Pvt. Ltd who in turn would issue the cheques for the share application money to the concerns desirous of obtaining the accommodation entries. Copies of bank statements showing huge deposit of cash in bank from where cheques have been issued to the share applicants support the statements made by the directors. It was also stated that for providing these accommodation entries, commission @ 1.5% of the share application money was charged. It has further been stated by Shri S.N. Gadia that the above mentioned two concerns do not conduct business activity (answer to Q. No. 3 of the statement u/s 131(1)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit through share application money u/s 68 of the I.T. Act is confirmed. Also addition of Rs. 22,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission @ 1.5% given for obtaining the accommodation entries is confirmed. Ground No. 1 and 2 are dismissed.'' 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities have erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15.00 lacs u/s 68 of the Act on account of share capital subscribed and further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,500/- u/s 69 of the Act on account of undisclosed commission payment which should be deleted. The ld.AR of the assessee filed the written submission mainly praying as under:- ''3.17 Thus, once the existence of the subscribers was proved, the onus and heavy burden shifts on the Revenue to establish that either the share applicants were bogus or the money belonged to the assessee company itself. In view of this, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company. At best, if the AO was not satisfied, the addition could have been made in the hands of the companies/ individuals who had provided the entries'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 69B of the I.T. Act, 1961.'' In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. It is also noted that the ld.AR of the assessee during the course of hearing submitted hereunder that the lower authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. 3.6 (i) The AO failed to provide the copies of statements used against the assessee company. (ii) The AO should not have used the evidence without examining in chief Shri S.N. Gadia and Smt. Lalitha Chauhan by himself. (iii) The AO was duty bound to allow cross examination of Shri S.N. Gadiya and Smt. Lalitha Chauhan whose statements were used against the assessee company because it is a pragmatic requirements of fair play in action. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries, Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 02-09-20156 wherein it was held that where opportunity for cross examination is not given, it is violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the orders of the lower authorities, submissions of the ld.AR of the assessee and the present facts & circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of equity and ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it & Gains from business and profession and including it under the head 'Income from other sources is confirmed. No exemption u/s 10AA can be claimed on this interest income. Ground No. 3 is dismissed.'' 5.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,33,429/- by disallowing exemption u/s 10AA of interest on FDR. The ld.AR of the assessee further vide letter dated 3-08-2017 prayed for admission of the following additional evidence. ''The appellant most humbly prays for admission of the following additional evidence:- S.N. Particulars Page No Quick Reference 1. Sanction letter of Additional Term loan and working capital limit from Punjab National Bank 1 to 17 9 & 11 During the proceedings before AO and ld. CIT(A), the assessee company submitted that the investments in FDRs are incidental to the business of the assessee company and the said fact was not disputed byb the lower authorities. Thus the assessee company was under bona fide belief that the submissions alone will suffice and did not present the same before the AO and ld. CIT(A). However, the evidence is vital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vital matter of the issue in question which goes to the root of the matter. It is also noted that this additional evidence was not produced before the lower authorities. Looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case, it will be in the interest of equity and justice to restore the issue in question to the file of the AO to decide it afresh taking into consideration the additional evidence (supra) and decide the issue by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes. 6.1 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground Nos. 4 and 5. Hence, the same are dismissed being not pressed. 7.1 Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 702/JP/2016 raising the solitary ground as under:- ''In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in treating the interest on FDR of Rs. 3,32,342/- as ''Income from other sources'' and thereby restricting the deduction u/s 10AA of I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,43,59,235/- as against claimed deduction of Rs. 4,46,88,897/-. The action of ld. CIT....