AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 ["the Act"] arising out of assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring income at INR 1,86,710/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the AO has observed that the assessee was engaged in the business of Recycling of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals. The reasons for limited scrutiny are (i) Expenses incurred for earning exempt and (ii) investments/advances/loans. The AO observed that assessee has declared Long Term Capital Gain ("LTCG") of INR 11,68,97,014/- from the sale of shares of some companies held as investments however, the assessee shown differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that the action of assessing officer treating the unexplained cash credit of Rs. 4,39,40,050/- in books of the assessee company without appreciating the fact that during the assessment proceeding the assessee failed to give any supporting document or corroborative evidence to prove that the cash credits of Rs. 4,39,40,050/- in the books of assessee, were received as sale consideration against the sale of shares. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances as well as in law the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,39,40,050/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to furn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act by the AO. 8. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that while deleting the additions, Ld. CIT(A) has admitted certain additional evidences filed by the assessee without providing an opportunity to the AO for verification/examination/inquiry in accordance with law. It is submitted by Ld. Sr. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has violated the provision of Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules') and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Manish Buildwell [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) wherein vide para 24 of the order, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that ".... sub-rule (3) which interdicts the CIT (A) from taking into account any evidence produced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Copy of bank statement of shares buyers reflecting payment made to appellant company; (iv) Balance sheet of earlier years. 12. It is further observed that Ld.CIT(A) though had admitted all the evidences however, had not discussed in detail about the veracity of these documents and deleted the additions made by AO. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Manish Buildwell (supra) under identical circumstances, where the ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences by exercising the powers confers upon him u/s 250(4) of the Act, in para 24 of the order has held as under: 24. In the present case, the CIT (A) has observed that the additional evidence should be admitted because the assessee was prevented by adducin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the distinction between the powers conferred by the CIT (A) under the statute while disposing of the assessee's appeal and the powers conferred upon him under Rule 46A. The Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the provisions of Rule 46A vis-à-vis Section 250(4). Its view that since in any case the CIT (A), by virtue of his conterminous powers over the assessment order, was empowered to call for any document or make any further enquiry as he thinks fit, there was no violation of Rule 46A is erroneous. The Tribunal appears to have not appreciated the distinction between the two provisions. If the view of the Tribunal is accepted, it would make Rule 46A otiose and it would open up the possibility of the assessee's contending that....