TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G.A. No. 2 of 2026 is an application for stay in connection with ITAT No. 84 of 2026. 2. The appellant/revenue has raised the substantial questions of law which are stated hereinbelow:- "i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to delete the addition of Rs.6,27,00,000/- and Rs.19,13,40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of accommodation entries as unexplained cash credit despite the respondent assessee failing to establish the genuineness of the transactions? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in not considering and appreciating that primary onus of proving the true nature and actual source of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions with cogent evidence was on the assessee but even after several opportunities being given the assessee failed to furnish cogent evidence before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) to establish its claim? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in failing to appreciate t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 16th March, 2015 by passing the order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is hereinafter referred to as "the said Act". By the said order passed under Section 143(3) of the said Act, the income of the respondent/assessee was assessed at Rs.33,00,66,403/-. 10. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT while exercising the power of revision as contemplated under Section 263 of the said Act revised the assessed income to Rs. 33,11,79,425/-. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in revision, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-18, Kolkata, whereupon the CIT (Appeals) vide its order dated 16th September, 2016 upheld the majority of decision made by the Assessing Officer and deleted some additions. The CIT (Appeals) revised the total income to Rs. 23,87,07,930/-. 12. Challenging the said order, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as contemplated under Section 253 of the said Act and after hearing the parties the Income Tax Tribunal remanded back the case to the Assessing Officer for making de novo assessment. 13. Pursuant thereto, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ongly invoking the provisions of section 68 in respect of the transactions with M/s Growfast Realtors (P) Ltd. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the A.O. to the tune of Rs. 19,13,40,000/- wrongly invoking the provisions of section 68 in respect of the transactions with M/s Sarda Vanijya (P) Ltd. 4. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the A.O. to the tune of Rs. 3,75,799/- holding that the said amount represented ingenuine trading liability of M/s Bharat Enterprise though there is no provision in the Act for making such addition. 4 (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the A.O. to the tune of Rs. 9,00,246/- holding that the said amount represented ingenuine trading liability of M/s Nirmal though there is no provision in the Act for making such addition. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition made by the A.O. totaling to Rs. 20,33,817/- in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Growfast Realtors (P) Ltd. 27. So far as deleting Rs. 19,13,40,000/- as unexplained credit from M/s Sarda Vanijya Private Limited, the Appellate Tribunal has considered several documents annexed to the paper book such as details of transaction, certificate of an accountant which is a certificate under first proviso to Sub- Section 1 of Section 201 of the said Act certifying that the aforesaid payment had been made to M/s Sarda Vanijya Private Limited and TDS was also duly deducted. 28. It is the specific finding of the Appellate Tribunal that considering those documents, it had been duly proved that the respondent/assessee had paid the said amount as business payment to M/s Sarda Vanijya Private Limited. 29. We also find from the impugned order that the Appellate Tribunal has categorically referred to accounts of trading liabilities from the respective parties for proving the transaction entry by the respondent/assessee relating to the two companies namely, M/s Bharat Enterprise and M/s Nirman. The Tribunal has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,75,799/- and Rs. 9,00,246/- after considering that the preponderance of probabilities in this respect lies in favour of the respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the records of the respondent/assessee for the relevant assessment year which was under consideration got lost/damaged/soiled but, however, the respondent/assessee later on retrieved records which were produced before the Assessing Officer. We also find after going through the order of the Assessing Officer which were subsequently affirmed by the Commissioner that nothing had been said on this point by the Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer had erroneously recorded that nothing had been produced by the respondent/assessee. This apart, the additional evidence which were given before the Tribunal is permissible in law. 37. Rule 18 Sub-Rule 4 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 permits the respondent/assessee to give additional evidence. Rule 18 Sub- Rule 4 is quoted hereinbelow:- "(4) The additional evidenced, if any, shall not form part of the same paper book. If any party desires to file additional evidence, then the same shall be filed by way of a separate paper book containing such particulars as arc referred to in sub-rule (3) accompanied by an application stating the reasons for filing such additional evidence." 38. Rule....