Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 277 - ITAT SURATUnexplained investment u/s 69 - CIT-A deleted addition admitting the additional evidences - sufficient reasons for complete non-compliance during assessment stage which is a pre-condition for accepting additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules,1962 - HELD THAT:- We note that ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences, apart from the above, Ld. CIT(A) did not record reasons in writing for admitting additional evidences. We note that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not raised additional ground. The assessee furnished only additional evidences. Therefore, findings of ld CIT(A) that he had admitted additional ground, is factually incorrect. CIT(A) has not explained in his order that which issue he has adjudicated by way of additional ground. CIT(A) did not explain in his order the exceptional clause (a) to (d) of Rule 46A, which are:(a) the Assessing Officer has refused to admit evidence(s); or (b) Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon by the Assessing Officer; or (c) assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer which is relevant to any ground of appeal; or (d) The Assessing Officer has made the order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. Hence, we note that ld CIT(A) did not deal with these exceptions of Rule 46A, therefore, ld CIT(A) accepted the additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Rules, which is not tenable in law. CIT(A) erred in admitting that source of investment of pound sterling for share of company namely Flightcare Ltd., in the name of Shri Nurudin Ajania i.e., husband of the assessee - there was no name of the assessee i.e., Smt. Shehnaz Nurdin Ajania. Besides, the learned CIT(A) also erred in admitting that source of investment of Rs.50,00,000/- as opening balance and other credits in bank account was jointly. We note that in the remand report, the assessing office mentioned that there is no details received from the Indian Banks. The assessing officer further mentioned that details received HSBC Bank, the source of investment was not clearly mentioned. Even in remand proceedings, the assessing officer did not get opportunity to verify these details hence it is a complete violation of Rule 46A of the Rules, therefore, we are of the view that matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of these documents and details. Hence, due to proceedings, and even in remand proceedings, the assessee has not submitted entire details before the assessing officer and there is no findings by ld CIT(A) on additional ground, therefore, we are of the view that an opportunity should be given to Assessing Officer to verify these documents and details. Therefore, we accept the prayer of Ld DR for the Revenue, and set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration - Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
|