TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 391
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.03.2013.The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1.On the facts and income circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting book results u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in making the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash receipts from loan and advances given in earlier years. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on th9e subject, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see has shown in the balance-sheet of the firm as on 31.03.2009, the assessee has shown receivable from M/s Mehulkumar & Bros and Dipesh Doshi. M/s Mehulkumar & Bros is the proprietorship firm Rashila Suryakant Doshi who is the mother of Dipesh Doshi. Further Depesh Doshi is a partner in the assessee-firm. The sale of the assessee-firm during the year ended on 31.03.2009 was of Rs. 25.70.The above two family members i.e., M/s Mehulkumar & Bros and Dipesh Doshi collected the debts from various customers to whom the sales were made by assessee. The amounts collected from the debtor were kept in bank by assessee and subsequently remitted to the firm. As such, the receivable amount of Rs. 1.50 crores made from debtor, for which sales were alrea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the books of account. Accordingly, on similar observation, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the rejection of books of account on the addition of Rs. 1.50 crores. The Ld. CIT(A) held that on perusal of details, he found that assessee as per having three partners, namely, Kiran Suryakant Doshi, Jatin Suryakant Doshi and Dipesh Suryakant Doshi to proprietorship concern namely, M/s Mehulkumar & Bros. and Dipesh Doshi are not the partners in the assessee-firm. The assessee claims that entire sales on assessee-firm was in cash and the above two persons with proprietorship concerned collected cash from various customers and remitted to the firm. During appellate stage, the assessee was asked to furnish the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discussion on such issue and no direction to produce the same was made during that stage. The assessee furnished details written submission on various debtors and argued the matter that the amounts were given to different parties which were out of sale proceeds reflected in the audited financial statement. The sale of assessee were in cash and it is reflected in the audited accounts. 5. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidence and filed the evidence on record. The said additional evidence may be admitted as per Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), 1963. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that additional evidence furnished by assessee is having direct bearing of the issue involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not liable to be admitted. 7. In alternative submission, Ld. Sr.DR of the Revenue submits that in case the Hon'ble Tribunal deem it appropriate to admit the additional evidence, then the matter may be remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for examining independent evidence afresh. 8. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. We find that the books of account was rejected by Assessing Officer for the want of supporting vouchers and cash books. Similarly, the addition was also made by taking view that no sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim was furnished by Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition for the want of evidence. Now before u....