TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Appeal 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced below:- i) Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing additional evidence without intimating to the Assessing Officer violating provisions of section 45A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in accepting additional grounds during appellate proceedings without calling for remand report from Assessing Officer. 3. Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 29th February 2016, declaring total income of Rs. 2,53,45,080. The return of income filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the mismatch and the derivative transaction, the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs. 58,21,22,471, to the income of the assessee. The assessee challenged the addition by filing an appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. In course of proceedings before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee furnished certain additional evidences with regard to the addition of Rs. 56,75,52,250, as unexplained investment under section 69C of the Act on the basis CIB information. To explain the aforesaid transaction, the assessee furnished additional evidences along with a written note. After considering the submissions of the assessee and evidences filed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made of Rs. 56,75,52,250....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire addition relying upon such evidences. Drawing our attention to the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Departmental Representative submitted, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not even discussed in detail the nature of evidences filed by the assessee and simply going by the submissions of the assessee has deleted the addition. Thus, he submitted, the issue needs to be restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication. 7. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee has not only furnished all information/evidences explaining the material contained in CIB/AIR information, but learned Commissioner (Appeals) after verifying them hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the return of income was picked-up for scrutiny and accordingly issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act to the assessee calling for the required information. It is evident, the assessee did not comply to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. In fact, the assessee remained totally non-responsive during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was compelled to complete the assessment to the best of his judgment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of information available on record. It is evident, the Assessing Officer was in possession of CIB/AIR information revealing investment/transaction amounting to Rs. 56,75,52,250, in derivatives, futures and options. Since the assessee neither appeared nor furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es suo-motu. Furnishing of additional evidences by the assessee is regulated under rule 46A and subject to restrictions/conditions imposed therein. On a reading of rule 46A(3), it is very much clear that if the assessee on his own furnishes additional evidences before the first appellate authority, such evidences shall not be taken into account unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity verifying such evidences and offering his comment. Therefore, the power of the first appellate authority, as conferred under section 250(4) r/w rule 46A(4) is different from the opportunity given to the assessee under rule 46A(1). While rule 46A(1) is circumscribed by certain conditions, rule 46A(4) is not so as it provides ample ....