Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 151 - GUJARAT HIGH COURTAdmission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Act Held that:- The CIT (A) recorded that the notice of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer on 31st October 2011 was received by the assessee on the date of hearing itself - It was therefore that the assessee could not produce necessary evidence on such date - When subsequently, he attended the office of the Assessing Officer on 25th November 2011 with necessary evidence, he learnt that the order of assessment was already passed on 21st November 2011- on this ground that the CIT (A) permitted additional evidence to be produced thus, CIT (A) committed no error nor the admission of additional evidence can be stated to be in breach of the requirement of Rule 46A of the Rules - Particularly when the interest of the Revenue was safeguarded by calling for the remand report and permitting the Assessing Officer to comment on such additional evidence there is no reason to interfere - Decided against Revenue. Deletion confirmed by Tribunal Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the entries of cash deposited are duly reflected in the personal cash book which the appellant has submitted under Rule 46A - The appellant has given documentary evidence relating to loans taken thus, the source of the same is not questionable - From the contents of the order passed by the CIT (A), it can be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record - The CIT (A) having undertaken detailed exercise of reconciling the accounts and examined the source of different deposits in cash, limited the addition to ₹ 10,45,000 thus, there was no question of law arises - Decided against Revenue. Deletion made u/s 69 of the Act CIT(A) was of the view that the source of cash is duly explained by the appellant with the help of cash book and sources of cash deposited in the cash book and in the bank account thus, the source of investment in the property is treated as explained - The CIT (A) has given cogent reasons and found no grounds for sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer - the source of investment in the property stood explained the order of the CIT(A) confirmed by the Tribunal thus, no question of law arises Decided against Revenue.
|