2011 (5) TMI 1134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Income Tax Rules; 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.25,00,000/-, being share capital received from share-holders, under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. " 3. The first issue for consideration relates to rejecting the assessee's contention for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46-A of the Income-tax Rules. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee introduced share capital of Rs.25 lakhs in the name of four persons i.e. Veerbhadren Ch. Rs.5,00,000/-; Beena Shaji Rs.5 lakhs; Deepa S. Rs.5 lakhs; and Beni Prasad Ram Narain Rs.10 lakhs. The assessing officer asked the assessee to prove the identity, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions in respect of share app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 wherein it has been held that on bare reading of Rule 46-A the assessee does not have right to file additional evidence unless his case falls within one of the situations prescribed under Rule 46-A. The discretion to permit the additional evidence lies with the ld. CIT (A). Therefore, it cannot be said that the ld. CIT (Appeals) is duty bound to admit any evidence that the assessee wishes to adduce, based on which he would conduct a de novo examination of the case before him. The ld. CIT (A) in view of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ITAT observed that the assessing officer from September, 2008 till issuance of order on 21st December, 2009 had given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file necessary details, which have ....