TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2008-09. 2. There is a delay of 31 days for filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In support of its contention, assessee has filed application alongwith affidavit stating that due to inadvertent mistake, same was skipped from the mind of the assessee to forward the details to his AR. Since the above delay is not a big delay, we, therefore, satisfy with the contention of the Department and condone the delay and proceed the appeal. 3. The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: "The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.5,18,803/- by treating the purchases made from M/s. Sparsh Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rajendra Jain & others Group on 03.10.2013.During the course of search it was revealed that group of companies has indulged in giving accommodation entries. Sparsh exports is one of the group companies engaged in providing accommodation entries and it was found that M/s Siduhi Diamond is one of me beneficiaries. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the I.T.Act on the basis of information received and the same was completed by passing an order u/s 144 rws 147 of the I.T.Act. Ample opportunities were given to the assessee vide notices u/s 142(1) dated 15.06.2015,04.09.2015,23.10.2015,25.01.2016,17.02.2016, and 24.02.2016 to submit its contentions with regard to the accommodation entry of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.5,18,803/-.Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w admitting additional evidence where the assessee could collect various evidences only after passing of the assessment order and held that Income Tax Rules which regulates the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) cannot override the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we rely on the following decisions: * Avan Gidwani v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) (I.T.A. No.5138/Mum/2015, dt. 06.04.2016) * CIT v. E.D. Benny & Ors. (2015) 234 Taxman 802 / 126 DTR 296 (Ker.HC) * Naresh Chauhan v. Dy.CIT (2016) 48 ITR 1 (Chd.)(Trib) * ACIT v. Saraswati Builders (2017) 183 TTJ13 (UO) (Asr.)(Trib.) * ACIT v. Krafts Palace (2015) 68 SOT 338(URO) / 40 iTR 158 / 154 ITD 275 (Agra)(Trib.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejudice to our above submission, we would like to further state that the, additions were not sustained in case of ail the other companies alleged to have entered' into accommodation entry business with M/s. Sparsh exports Pvt Ltd in their respective assessments. * Thus the addition on account of bogus purchase entries amounting to Rs. 5,18,803/- be deleted." The learned CIT(A), after considering the documents and remand report submitted by the AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Now, assessee has come before us against the order of learned CIT(A) by way of a second statutory appeal. 8. We have gone through the impugned order, remand report and materials available on record. In this case, addition was made on ....