TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....king an addition under Section 68 of the Act of INR 3,00,00,000 with respect to unsecured loan obtained by the Appellant from its partner; 2. Erred in rejecting the additional evidences submitted by the Appellant; 3. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble CIT(A) in order to render justice can admit additional evidences; 4. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the rejection of additional evidence would be a grave violation of natural justice; 5. Erred in not granting relief to the Appellant merely on technical grounds without considering the merits of the case; 6. Erred in not appreciating the fact that the source and genuineness of unsecured loan was duly explained by the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the two issues (i) large increase in unsecured loan during the year (ii) unsecured loan from the persons who have not filed their return of income. 3. A notice u/s. 143(2) issued on 03.07.2017 was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued. In response, Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee firm filed a letter of authority along with other general details like tax audit report, financial statement and details of unsecured loans. Thereafter, the ld Assessing Officer (AO) issued further notice asking the assessee to justify the genuineness of unsecured loan of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- received from Rushi C Mali/ Rushi Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. & others and to discharge its onus u/s. 68 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it was submitted that the accountant of the assessee firm had left the job and so also AR of the assessee who was supposed to appear before the Income-tax Authorities, had discontinued his services to the assessee firm. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded those additional evidences to the ld AO calling for a remand report. The ld AO objected to the admission of the additional evidence, however, gave his comment on the merit also. But the Ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of rule 46A that assessee is not entitled for the benefit of rule 46A being none of the conditions of said rules were fulfilled by the assessee for admitting of the additional evidence. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: "8.7 It can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot filed such evidence before the AO All the documents that are filed now during the appeal proceedings were already available with appellant, especially loan sanction letter of Religare at the time of assessment proceedings. But for some strange reason appellant chose not to file those documents before AO in spite of AO specifically issuing the notice u/s 133(6) to Rishi C Mali to file evidence to prove genuineness of unsecured loan. During assessment proceedings, after getting to know about inquiries of AO u/s 133(6), appellant firm chose to file only unsigned confirmation letter of Sri Rishi C Mali There is no evidence on record to show that it sought time to file documents to prove creditworthiness of Sri Rishi C Mali during assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited 84 - 85 16. Ledger copy of Vishal Doshi (Partner of Matrix Automotives) 86 - 87 17. Ledger copy of Rushabh Motors (Customer of Matrix Automotives) 88 - 91 18. Photocopy of cheque received from Religare Finvest 92 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 54. 8. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. In the grounds raised by the assessee two additions made by the AO are in dispute, firstly, addition of Rs. 3 crores in relation to unsecured loan(s) obtained by the assessee during the year under consideration, secondly addition of Rs. 7,71,437/- is in relation to the capital introduced by the once of the partner i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a valid reason for allowing the assessee for filing additional evidences because the assessee fulfills the sub clause (c) of rule 46A (1) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the said evidences before the ld AO, which were relevant to the addition made by the ld AO. We are of opinion that in absence of accountant and AR it might not have been possible for the assessee to keep track of the assessment proceedings, which resulted into ex-parte order against the assessee. In such circumstances, it is sufficient cause by which the assessee was prevented and deserves for admission of additional evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to him....