Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 156 - AT - Income TaxAddition on non confirmation of advances by the parties - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The assessee did not furnish the confirmation letters from the concerned parties. It appears that assessee did not cooperate with the Assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the alleged additional evidence in violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Sub Rule (2) provides that the CIT(A) while admitting such evidence must record its reasoning in writing. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 46A provides that Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not accept such evidence unless the Assessing officer has been given reasonable opportunity of examining the evidence so produced. In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded the reasons for admitting the additional evidence. Similarly, no opportunity has been given to the Assessing officer to examine the additional evidence, if any, submitted by the assessee because no confirmation was submitted with respect to the amount for ₹ 20,36,703/-. Thus remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the issues afresh - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes Addition on non confirmation of cash credits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:-Assessing officer noted that the assessee had furnished the confirmation of two parties without PAN from whom advances were shown by the assessee. It is stated that assessee submitted only copy of the account given by the parteis but no PAN was mentioned on the letter head of the parties. Therefore, in the absence of proper confirmations, the Assessing officer treated the amount of ₹ 3,63,750/- as unexplained cash credit and added the same to the total income off the assessee. It is true that in the absence of proper confirmations, the Assessing officer was justified in treating the amount in question as unexplained cash credits. The onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Without PAN., it was not possible to verify the transactions particularly when one of the parties is stated to be from State of Gujarat. The Ld. CIT(A) himself has observed that the Assessing officer has reported that in case of M/s Vishvnagar CT Scan Centre, Gujarat, the letters have been received back un-served. Thus, the very existence of the party is doubtful.Thus remand the matter to the Assessing officer with a direction to decide the issues afresh - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes
|