TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged (i) refusal to admit the additional evidences furnished before the ld. CIT(A); (ii) sustenance addition of Rs.26,91,22,083/- as bogus liability on account of sundry creditors and (iii) disallowance of Rs.63,48,037/- on account of depreciation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Nil. However, the assessee had declared income u/s. 115JB of the IT Act at Rs.2,50,088/- as net profit on maintenance fee received of Rs.35,01,12,323/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 25.02.2011 requiring the assessee to furnish certain details/information such as Tax Audit report u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wherein only the closing balances were confirmed and none of the creditors were found filing the return with ROC. The AO also noticed that all these confirmations were signed by the common director of the companies, Ms. Sweta. The AO also noticed that auditors reported in clause 1(a) of annexure to Form 3CA that the assessee has not maintained proper records showing full particulars including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets. It was, therefore, observed that in absence of any details and complete documentary evidences and in view of observations of the auditors, the utilization of assets for the purpose of business could not be verified. The AO, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and for want of complete supporting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be unjustified. The AO on disallowance of depreciation, reiterated the contents of the assessment order. Analyzing the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, the AO reported that since the Assessee failed to establish that it was prevented by sufficient cause to produce the evidences in assessment proceedings, hence, the additional evidences furnished by the assessee for the CIT(A) are not fit to be admitted. Again, the ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 05.12.2012, the AO was asked to submit fresh report on merit of the case which he furnished vide letter dated 25.04.2013. The assessee also filed rejoinder of the remand reports as reproduced in the impugned order. After making such a vast exercise, the ld. CIT(A) finally did not admit the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find substance in the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is notable that even though the remand report of the AO was sought by the ld. CIT(A) on the said additional evidences, he finally did not admit such evidences for consideration. Such an action of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in view of the proposition made in the case of Sahrukh Khan vs. DCIT (supra), where the Tribunal has held as under : "Thus on reading of all these three sub-rules it is implicitly clear that first stage is the assessee sought permission for the admission of additional evidence, the next stage would come that such permission would be granted by recording reasons and thereafter the additional evidence would be sent to the assessing Officer fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... opinion, does not help the Revenue, having been rendered in different context. As no decision taking a contrary view in the matter has been cited by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence. Besides, on perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking order on merits of the case also by recording his specific findings on the objections of the AO and the submissions of the assessee, but has simply endorsed the views taken by the AO in a very slip shod manner. Therefore, the issues under consideration need fresh adjudication by the Revenue authorities. Since the Assessing Officer has to examine the additional evidences in order to ....