TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1551
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied by CBDT for filing appeals before ITAT by Revenue, and the corresponding penalty appeal was accordingly also dismissed. However, pursuant to Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by the Department highlighting that the tax effect had been incorrectly computed and actually exceeded the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT, both appeals were recalled for fresh adjudication. 3. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum proceedings in ITA No. 3633/Del/2017. 4. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee before us. We have noted that, on all the previous occasions when the appeal has been fixed for hearing after recall, the assessee has remained unrepresented throughout. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee is not interested in participating in the appellate proceedings before us. Accordingly, we proceed to hear and decide the appeal ex-parte, based on the material available on record and with the assistance of the Ld. Sr. DR before us. 5. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring Nil income, claiming its income exempt u/s 11 of the Act. The case was picked up for scrutiny assessment durin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e loans represented amounts received by the assessee from the banks and were outstanding since very long. It was, therefore, contended by the assessee that there was no question of treating the same as ingenuine. All the evidences so furnished by the assessee were submitted to the Assessing Officer for his report. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee was attempting to mislead the Department by filing different balance-sheets - three in all - all signed by the same auditor. However, with respect to the last balance-sheet filed before him, he agreed with the contention of the assessee that the loans represented amounts advanced by the bank to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of both the sides, held that, in view of the fact that the assessee was never denied exemption in scrutiny assessment in the past and even in the subsequent assessment years, there was no case at all for denying the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the act of the Assessing Officer of denying the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act was set aside by the Ld. CIT(A). With respect to addition made on account of loans remaini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed balance sheet showing correct figures on 24.10.2007 whereas the order u/s. 144 was passed on 08.12.2008 and does not mention anything about the revised balance sheet. During the assessment, the first balance sheet and I & E a/c. submitted was considered and the addition was made as income from undisclosed sources in absence of any explanation. d. The remand report of the AO dated 27.09.2012 in the end clearly says that the bank account statements were seen by the AO and the bank balance reflected the term loans correctly as per the balance sheet submitted for the third time. 8.4. The picture that emerges is that the assessee was misrepresented by the statutory auditor Mr. Sanjay Garg and might have been ignorant about the details filed by him, though ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. From the details of other AYs, it is seen that in those years also, the balance sheet and I & E a/c. has been revised as in AY 2006-07. The revised details were accepted in the other years and as per the remand report given by the AO, it is held that the last balance sheet and I & E a/c, may be considered as the right one. Further, it is seen that the loan has been shown as ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and based on this finding, he held that there was no case, therefore, for the Assessing Officer to deny the benefit of exemption to the assessee in the absence of any critical finding to support the same. 9. Before us, the Ld. DR was unable to controvert the factual findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee in the past and in the future had never been denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act in scrutiny assessment undertaken by the Department. It is also a fact on record that in the impugned year, the basis for denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was merely on account of non-furnishing of any details by the assessee during assessment proceedings. In light of the same, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that there is no case at all for denying the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act in the present case. Ground of appeal No. 1 is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Ground of Appeal No. 2 relates to the admission of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT(A) under Rule 46A of the Act. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the assessee had contended before him that he was unaware of the assessment proceedings. Mr. Sanjay Garg w....