TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee either before the A.O. or before the Ld. CIT(A) and in the absence of any reasons given by Ld. Counsel for the assessee to show what prevented the assessee to offer this explanation before the authorities below, the same cannot be entertained at this stage during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal. Moreover, the documents filed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of the new stand taken by him constitute additional evidence and there is no application filed by him seeking admission thereof as required by Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, 1963. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the Ld. DR, these documents filed by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal is not a reliable evidence inasmuch as the computati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mr. Ramakrishna Bandi ORDER These two appeals filed by the assessee against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Guntur dated 16th February, 2015 for A.Ys. 2007-2008 and 2008- 2009 involve similar issues and the same therefore have been heard together and are being disposed of by single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of fire wood. A search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted on 15.09.2008 in the cases belonging to Goud group. During the course of said action, certain incriminating material pertaining to the assessee was found and seized. Consequently, notices under section 153C were issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said amount to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-2009. 2.2. The assessee was also found to have made investment in purchase of a open plot admesuring 634 sq. yards at Survey No. 1 and 2 Maji (Part) along with his brother for a total consideration of ₹ 6,35,000. In this regard, his share of investment to the tune of ₹ 3,47,170 made on 20.12.2007 was claimed to be declared by the assessee in the return of income filed for A.Y. 2008-2009. In his sworn statement recorded on 20.10.2008, the assessee however stated the value of this investment as ₹ 5,05,620. The A.O. noted that there was thus a difference in sale consideration to the extent of ₹ 1,58,450 as admitted by the assessee himself. He also noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the A.O. in A.Y. 2008-2009, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the said investment to the extent of ₹ 3,47,170 was duly reflected in the balance sheet filed by the assessee. He therefore treated the said investment to that extent as explained. As regards the balance of ₹ 1,58,650, the assessee again failed to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards the source of funds. The Ld. CIT(A) therefore sustained the addition made by the A.O. on this count to the extent of ₹ 1,58,650. Still aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2007- 2008 and 2008-2009, the assessee has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee has not filed either the computation of total income or the balance sheet of the HUF for the years under consideration and the copy of bank account showing some withdrawals by the HUF alone is not sufficient to establish the availability of funds with HUF at the relevant time. 6. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, I find merit in the arguments of the learned D.R. that the new stand taken by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee by attempting to explain the source of investments made by the assessee in his individual capacity as the funds available with the HUF cannot be entertained at this stage. First of all, this explanation was not offered by the assessee either before the A.O. or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
