2026 (3) TMI 1604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1)(3), Mumbai (for brevity the ''Ld. AO"), order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order 21.12.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was employed as a salary professional during the impugned assessment year. In addition to his employment the assessee undertook a one time liasioning and coordination assignment relating to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Redevelopment Project in Mumbai. The assessee filed the return on 30.11.2017 declaring total income Rs. 86,33,920/-. The assessee's case was reopened u/sec. 148 of the Act by a notice dated 20.03.2017. Out of salary income the assessee declared the net profit from business and professi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue and rejected the appeal of the assessee. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) in para no.6 and 6.2 is reproduced as below: "6. Appellant's submissions were carefully considered. Appellant received an amount of Rs. 1,03,90,000/- from various concems as mentioned above. However. the true nature of the receipts was not clearly proved by the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO analyzed the balance sheet and P &L account of Shri. YashwantShekharPoojari, from whom appellant received the amount of Rs. 1,03,90,000/-. AO observed that Shri. Poojari had not reported any investment in proprietary concerns, namely M/s Balaji Project Management Consultancy, SS Consultancy an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the course of appeal proceedings, cannot be admitted under rule 46A of IT Rules. Appellant did not prove that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the AO. Hence, the self-made vouchers with respect to the expenses towards shifting charges, allegedly paid to various persons, claimed to be occupants of a property is not admitted as evidence under rule 46A of the IT Rules." Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR) submitted that a paper book comprising pages 1 to 499 has been filed and placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had undertaken a one-time venture and earned gross receipts amountin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king channels, thereby lending prima facie credibility to the transactions. Thus, the existence of the activity and receipt of income there from cannot be entirely disregarded. However, with regard to the claim of expenditure, we find that the assessee failed to substantiate the same with cogent and verifiable evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly observed that the supporting evidences, such as self-made vouchers relating to shifting charges allegedly paid to occupants, were not produced at the assessment stage and were sought to be introduced at the appellate stage without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the rejection of such additional evidence by....