TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmed while framing the assessment. (c) The results of the field enquiries found that all the creditors are existent and the information sought by the Ld.AO on behalf of Ld. CIT(A) were given and were found matching with the balances those were appearing in the books of the assessee. (d) The Ld. CIT(A) asked the AR of the assessee to submit rejoinder to the remand report submitted by Ld. AO to the Ld. CIT(A) and rejoinder was duly submitted. (e) The factual report submitted by the Ld. AO u/s 250(4) was ignored and not considered just because the assessee could not submit the confirmations at the time of assessments is the prejudice of the mind of the Ld. CIT(A) by not only ignoring it but also not considering the same. (f) The rejection of application for submission of the additional evidences by just mentioning that the appellant has attempted to cover the lapses during the assessment proceedings is nothing but has a lame excuse on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to ignore the result of the enquiries conducted at her behest and ignoring the result of the enquiries is the misuse of the judicial process conducted at her behest by the Ld. AO. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s reproduced above. 2.1 In the grounds raised, the assessee is mainly aggrieved with not admitting additional evidence. The assessee is also aggrieved that in remand proceeding the inquiries carried out by the Assessing Officer have not taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A). 3. As far as the grounds related to rejection of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962, is concerned, the brief facts are that during assessment proceeding the Assessing Officer observed sundry creditors of Rs. 8,97,51,952.87/- in the balance-sheet filed by the assessee for the proprietary concern. The learned Assessing Officer vide order sheet dated 11/09/2017 asked for confirmation along with documentary evidence in support of the genuineness of the transaction and existence and creditworthiness of the parties. Despite opportunities provided on 11/09/2017; 13/11/2017; 19/12/2017 and 28/12/2017 for filing copy of ledger account of the sundry creditors duly confirmed by them, the assessee did not file the information and, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,17,23,335/- for credit balances of 13 parties, a list of which is reproduced as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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: (a) where the &[Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the &[Assessing Officer]; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the &-[Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or (d) where the 2Z[Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. From a perusal of the above, it is clear that additional evidence can be admitted only if AO has refused to admit such evidence or AO has passed an order without giving sufficient opportunity or where the AO was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence called for by the AO or relevant to any ground of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ities accorded by the AO, the last being on 29.12.2017. So, the claim of the appellant that the AO did not accept the confirmations/ledger accounts of the creditors on the last date smacks of an attempt to circumvent the clear pre-requisites mandated under Rule 46A. Moreover, no proof of this claim has been produced by the appellant. If the AO refused his submissions, the appellant could have filed the requisite information in the DAK and produced the receipt number to authenticate his claim. This has not been done so. A bald claim or assertion has no locus standi in legal proceedings or quasi-judicial proceedings. In the light of the facts detailed above, it is clear that the case of the appellant does not fall within the ambit of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A. The appellant has not been able to prove 'sufficient cause' that prevented him from producing evidence in the form of confirmations/ledger accounts of sundry creditors before the AO despite specific requisition made by the AO and despite opportunity(6) accorded in this regard. Nor has he been able to establish that his case falls within the ambit of conditions detailed in Rule 46A. He has also not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee submitted that the there was delay in getting the copy of ledger account of the sundry creditors in dispute confirmed from them and thereafter the assessee approached the Assessing Officer. According to the learned Counsel, the Assessing Officer refused to accept the same on the ground of limitation of completing the assessment was approaching near. The learned Counsel submitted that in terms of rule 46A(1)(a) of Income-tax Rules,1962, if the Assessing Officer has refused to admit the evidences, then assessee is entitled to produce the same as additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not admitting additional evidence. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has also decided the issue of merit and while deciding the addition of merit the Ld. CIT(A) has taken into consideration the additional evidences filed by the assessee. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee failed to file the said copy of confirmation of the sundry creditors before the Assessing Officer despite several opportunities and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the [Assessing Officer]) under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.]" 8. On perusal of the Rule 46A(1) of the Rules, it is evident that the assessee has been prohibited from producing the additional evidence except the four circumstances. The first circumstances is where the Assessing Officer has refused to admit additional evidence, which ought to have been admitted. In the instant case before us the assessee has pleaded that the assessee had filed such copy of confirmation of the some of the sundry creditors before the Assessing Officer, however, there was some delay in collecting the confirmed copy of the ledger account from the 13 parties, which he could collect in last week of the December 2017 only. When the assessee approached with those copies of the ledger accounts, the Assessing Officer refused to accept in view of the limitation of completing assessment was approaching. I....