AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10 and Cross Objection is filed by the Assessee. 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 281 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue when the same was filed on 30.03.2021. Similarly, the registry has noted that there is a delay of 19 days in filing the Cross Objection by the Assessee when it was filed on 22.07.2021. Both these dates were under the Covid-19 period wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 23.09.2021 passed the following orders: "........ 8. Therefore, we dispose of the MA No.665 of 2021 with the following directions: - I. In computing the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 03.11.2014. In response, the assessee filed a letter dated 10-12- 2014 to treat the original Return of Income in response to the u/s. 148 notice and called for reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. 2.3. The assessing officer called for information from the Principal Manager, BNP Paribas Mutual Fund to confirm the investment made by the assessee. BNP Paribas Mutual fund confirmed the investment of Rs. 23.06 crores by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 142(1) calling for explanation from the assessee. The assessee replied vide letter dated 17.10.2015 that he did not get the enclosures of the BNP Paribas Mutual Fund. The A.O. provided the details vide letter dated 19.10.2015 and requested the assessee to sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facie the submissions by the appellant through the Ld. ARs on the issue of sources of fund for investment in mutual fund appear to be reasonable, the appellant's letter dated 12.10.2011 to the 1TO Ward- 1, Nadiad denying the said investment remains a chink in the entire proceedings. However in totality of facts and circumstances of the case it appears appropriate that the AO be directed to obtain from the appellant the certified true copies of documents from the bank which the appellant shall be bound to furnish before the AO while giving effect to the appellate order and that AO having satisfied himself that the source of such investment is fund outside India, shall delete the addition made 4. Aggrieved against this order, the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstance of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to obtain from the appellant the certified true copies of documents which the appellant shall be found to furnish before the AO while giving effect to the appellate order and that AO having satisfied himself that the source of such investment is fund outside India shall delete the addition which is clearly in the nature of set aside of the assessment which clearly violates the scope and provisions of Section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961? Assessee Ground: 1. Appeal filled by the Appellant is bad in law, as it has been filled beyond the time limit permitted in the Law, ie. within 60 days from the date of service or communication of the order. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant, as explained here under : a. As mentioned by the A.O, the letter dated 12.10.2015 is the letter providing the details of investment in the BNP Paribas, but it was without attachment b. Letter dated 19.10.2015 is with reference to the letter dated 12.10.2015 and sent the attachment. Except these two letters, neither any correspondence nor notice was issued by the Ld AO. c. Even Ld AO has not issued any show cause notice for the addition of this huge amount. From the above fact, it has been established that, Ld AO has not provided sufficient and ample opportunity which is against the natural j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing it to the Ld AO. Considering this sufficient cause, we were prevented to produce the evidences before the AO. As the additional evidences suffice the provisions made in rule 46A, Ld CIT (A) has rightly accepted the additional evidences. 4. Ld CIT(A) has passed the Order according to the power vested as per the provisions of Section 250 of the I T Act and has not violated any provisions of Section 250 of the IT Act. 4.1. Though both the parties have raised various grounds in their respective appeal and Cross Objection. The short point is to be decided is whether the investment made by the assesse of Rs. 23.06 crores in Mutual Fund is assessable to tax in India. The assessee has proved beyond doubt that he is a Non-Re....