TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) vide orders dated 12.02.2018 were perverse to the law and to the fact of the case, because both of them failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause due to his serious illness to reconcile the difference of Rs.1,47,10,075/- appears as credit in the name or M/s Suraj Trading Co. as on 31.03.2014. 2. That the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) thereby upholding the additions of Rs.1,47,10,075/- was further not correct under the law and to the facts of the case because of rejecting the fresh evidence filed under Rule-46A(b) of the Income Tax Rules, thereby explaining the difference of Rs.1,47,10,075/- in the balance credit amount appears to be in the name of M/s Suraj Trading Co. as on 31.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reditor M/s Suraj Trading Co. 6. That the appellate order passed thereby upholding the additions of Rs.1,47,10,075/- in the hands of the appellant were further unconstitutional as against the law and to the facts of the case, because of not passing the speaking order on the merits of this case, as he has only relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. That no proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever afforded by the Assessing Officer and by the Ld. CIT(A) to the appellant prior to hold the addition of Rs.1,47,10,075/- in the hands of the appellant while passing the appellate order on 12.02.2018. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further failed to appreciate, that the addition made by the Assessing Officer to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove creditor to verify the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions with the appellant. In reply to the above notice, the above creditor submitted to the AO among other details a list of Sundry Debtors. In the list of Debtors, the amount of Rs.70,75,075/- was shown outstanding in his books of account in the name of assessee's business concern M/s Shyamji Trading Co. against the amount of Rs.2,17,85,150/- claimed as creditor by the assessee in the name of the above creditor. This information showing disparity was confronted to the assessee by the AO vide show cause notice dated 30.08.2016 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why the difference amount of Rs.l,47,10,075/- should not be added to his taxable income. This s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l,47,10,075/- is returned on 02.04.2014 in the next financial year and reversal of that cheque being made in next financial year has not been taken into account by the above creditor. This non accounting of returned cheque resulted into variation in the balances of above two ledger accounts. To support above contention the con formation of the creditor relevant to next financial year is submitted in the present appeal proceedings. Since this is a fresh evidence, the appellant has filed application for admission of these evidence under rule 46A The copy of the application under rule 46A was forwarded to AO for his comment and the AO vide remand report dated 22.02.2017 has opposed the admission of additional evidence on the ground that suffic....