AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1074
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the issue on merits. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 46,27,571/- made by the AO. On account of unexplained cash deposited in the saving bank account, ignoring the fact that the same was on account of business receipts of transportation. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the issue on account of additional of contract receipts of Rs. 1,18,661/- made by the A.O., whereas these receipts already stood covered in the gross receipts credited to the BOB account. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions made by the A.O. by not passing a speaking order on the ground of appeal filed before him. 6. The appellant prays you hono....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hereby confirmed." Against the said finding of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT by taking the grounds mentioned above. 5. Ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. In this regard, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: "1.1 The appellant very humbly submits that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had certain dispute with his AR S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indefinitely for want of remand report. Therefore, the appeal is being decided in the absence of remand report of the AO, concluding that the AO has no comment to offer" 1.5 The non-submission of remand report by the AO has been used to the disadvantage of the appellant by the CIT(A). As the AO failed to submit the desired report, the inference should have been drawn in favour of the appellant holding that the AO had no valid basis to rebut the additional evidence produced by the appellant. 1.6 The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant had failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposited in the bank account and no justification for admitting the additional evidence under Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve to provide justice." 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material available on record. As per facts of the present case, we noticed that the additions were made by the A.O. in the case of assessee by treating the bank deposits of Rs. 46,27,571/- as unexplained deposit U/s 68 of the Act as the assessee could not furnish the supporting documents and therefore, in absence of those supporting documents, added these amounts in the total income of the assessee. During the pendency of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules for admitting the documents in the shape of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in the bank account. 8. The ld AR, in order to support his contention, has specifically pleaded before us that the assessee had certain disputes with his authorized representative regarding charging of fee and although the assesseee had all the details called for by the A.O. with him but he could not produce the same before the A.O. as the said details were handed over to the assessee by his authorized representative. Even the said authorized representative had also refused to give NOC to enable the assessee to appoint another authorized representative to represent his case. Although, before the ld. CIT(A), all thos....