TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ish the circumstances and the reasons as to why he has not produced the same before the Assessing Officer - Therefore, the ld. first appellate authority has rightly rejected the same - Secondly, the assessee could not establish that the additional evidence produced by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is very much essential for just and proper decision in the case of the assessee." the assessee could not establish that the additional evidence produced by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is very much essential for just and proper decision in the case of the assessee Thus, the appeal is dismissed. - IT APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2010 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Akashay Bhan for the Appellant. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survey was conducted by the Income Tax Department on M/s Usha Garg and Company. The Assessing Officer on receiving information from the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Moga vide his office letter dated 20-2-2006, examined in detail, the current account No. 31001 of M/s Usha Garg and Company with Union Bank of India, Moga which revealed that Shri Rajat Bansal had received the following entries from this account : Cheque No. Date of clearing of cheques in Sh. Rajat Bansal Account Amount 152385 7-5-2002 Rs. 5,00,000 152387 17-9-2002 Rs. 5,61,625 349445 17-9-2002 Rs. 65,375 Total Rs. 11,27,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounted money in similar manner. He, therefore, treated Rs. 11,27,000 as concealed income of the assessee and added the same to the return of his income being income from undisclosed sources. The addition of Rs. 10,39,500, however, was deleted. On further appeal, the Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT(A). It was held that the addition in dispute had rightly been upheld by the CIT(A) and additional evidence was not permissible in view of the conduct of the assessee during assessment proceedings as well as on the ground that the said evidence was not essential for just and proper decision of the case. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. The question for consideration is whether there is any perversity in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that it was not his income whereas the Assessing Officer has recorded that the assessee had not been cooperative during the proceedings and had been deliberately and knowingly evading the reassessment proceedings. Once there was material to justify the addition made on merits, no error could be noticed in the re-assessment proceedings. 7. The second contention is equally devoid of merit inasmuch as the additional evidence had been declined as the assessee was not vigilant in pursuing the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and it was not established that the material was essential to adjudicate the controversy effectively. Moreover, the Tribunal observed as under : ". . . In our view, the assessee does not deserve any lenient vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
