TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndonation of delay of the Revenue is reproduced below: "3. In this connection, I am further directed to submit that the above mentioned order of the CIT(Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad was received on 01.07.2021. Therefore, as per the normal provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, the appeal to the ITAT was required to be filed by 29.08.2021. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has extended the limitation date for filing such appeal from time to time vide orders dated 23.03.2020, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020. As per latest order dated 23.09.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, etc., the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall be excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15,.3.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.2021." 3.Therefore, Ld AR contended that Bench may be considered the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On perusal of the condonation petition and in view of the concession given by the Ld. DR for the Revenue ( ld AR for the assessee raised no object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 without recording the detailed reasons for admission in writing which is a sine qua non under Ruled 46A(2) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in completely ignoring the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. (5) On the facts and circumstances of the assessee and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in admitting that source of investment of 5,00,000/- pound sterling i.e. Rs.3,55,25,000/- for share of company namely Flightcare Ltd., in the name of Shri Nurudin Ajania i.e., husband of the assessee. But, there was no name of the assessee i.e., Smt. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania. (6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in admitting that source of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- as opening balance and other credits in bank account was jointly. But, there was no name of the assessee i.e, Smt. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania. (7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.4,05,00,000/- (3,05,00,000 + 50,00,000/-) made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the I.T. Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence, therefore Assessing Officer noted that assessee has nothing to submit in respect of investment made by her/his in Mutual Funds. Assessee completely failed to discharge her duty. Assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate and support of investment made in purchase of Mutual Fund. (iv) In order to provide natural justice, one more opportunity to assessee was provided by issuing final show cause notice vide AO letter dated 22.12.2018 to furnish the requisite details on or before 24.12.2018. The relevant portion of final show- cause notice issued on 22.12.2018 is mentioned by AO in assessment order page no.2 and 3, which is reproduced below: "Please refer to the above, 2. In order to complete the assessment of your case, this office has granted you a number of opportunities vide various statutory notices as tabulated as under, per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') as detailed below: Sr.No. Particulars of notice issued Issuance date 1 Notice u/s 148 of the Act 28.03.2018 2 Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along 18.09.2018 Notice with Annexure 26.10.2018 3 Show cause notice 10.12.2018 In resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt which has been earned during the year under consideration. As the source of investment remains unexplained, addition of Rs.4,05,00,000/- was made by AO as unexplained investment in form of investment u/s 69 of the Act. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the whole addition of Rs.4,05,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. Before us, Shri H.P.Meena, Ld. CIT-DR submits that Assessing Officer has already noted detailed findings and came to the conclusion that assessee has not furnished any explanation in respect of investment made, therefore addition made by the assessing officer must be upheld. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has raised the ground challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act, however there is no adjudication by ld CIT(A) in his appellate order. 13. The Ld. CIT-DR further argued that order of Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- pound sterling i.e. Rs.3,55,25,000/- for share of company namely Flightcare Ltd., in the name of Shri Nurudin Ajania i.e., husband of the assessee. But, there was no name of the assessee i.e., Smt. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania. Besides, the learned CIT(A) also erred in admitting that source of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- as opening balance and other credits in bank account was jointly. But, there was no name of the assessee i.e, Smt. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania. Therefore, ld DR prays the Bench to set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 16. On the other hand, Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The ld Counsel submits that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. He pointed out that assessee was not technologically adept and did not regularly access the e-mails and therefore the notices were not complied to. It is the case of the assessee that the application under Rule 46A should be accepted if the assessee had reasonable cause to not furnish the details during the assessment proceedings. 17. The ld Counsel further pointed out that the investments made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious case laws in support of assessee in regard to admission of additional grounds of appeal and additional evidences, the objections of the AO cannot be upheld. The additional evidences are admitted for the purpose adjudication of the appeal under consideration". 20. We note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not raised additional ground. The assessee furnished only additional evidences. Therefore, findings of ld CIT(A) that he had admitted additional ground, is factually incorrect. The ld CIT(A) has not explained in his order that which issue he has adjudicated by way of additional ground. Further, ld CIT(A) did not explain in his order the exceptional clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A, which are:(a) the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence(s); or (b) Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon by the Assessing Officer; or (c) assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or (d) The Assessing Officer has made the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of ....