TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 139 of the Act on October 10, 2008, declaring the agriculture income of ₹ 58,384 and shown the total income at ₹ 14,43,163. The same total income was declared in the return filed under section 153A of the Act on September 5, 2012. The assessee failed to explain how the assessee could have substituted the agricultural income in return filed under section 153A of the Act by increasing the agriculture income. It is an afterthought story created by the assessee after search is conducted in the case of the assessee. The agriculture income declared by assessee now have not been supported by any evidence or material on record and no plausible explanation have been filed why additional agriculture income of ₹ 5,50,000 was not shown in the return of income filed under section 139 of the Act. The assessee never filed any revised return to claim higher agriculture income under section 139 of the Act. Therefore, considering totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. The same is accordingly dismissed. - Decided against assessee - I. T. A. No. 345/Chd/2015 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Bhavnesh Saini (Judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and Income-tax return. In the absence of any evidence on record, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 35 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act. 5. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence along with the supplementary application and it was contended before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the additional documents were absolutely necessary for adjudication of the case and that the same were not available with him at the time of completion of the assessment which was, therefore, sufficient cause for non-production before the Assessing Officer. The additional evidences sought to be admitted in respect of both the creditors were their copies of permanent account number card, bank account statement and confirmatory letters. 5(i) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee attended the proceedings before Assessing Officer and original return was filed in October, 2008, and return under section 153A was filed in September, 2012, therefore, the assessee had sufficient time to file the evidence before the Assessing Officer. Rule 46A of the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Manish Build Well Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The Assessing Officer at the assessment stage asked the assessee to furnish copies of the bank statements, Income-tax returns and permanent account numbers along with confirmations of both the creditors in order to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions in the matter. According to the assessee, the assessee made best efforts but these documents could not be produced at the assessment stage. The assessee produced these documents before the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as additional evidences and made a request for admission of additional evidence because the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing these documents before the Assessing Officer. 7(i) Rule 46A(1)(c) of the Income-tax Rules provides that, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) could admit the additional evidence where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal . 8. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, with direction to the assessee to produce copies of these additional evidences before the Assessing Officer for final determination of the issue on the merits. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, ground No. 1 of appeal of the assessee is allowed and ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. On ground No. 3, the assessee challenged the addition of ₹ 5,50,000 on account of agricultural income. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee has shown the agricultural income of ₹ 58,384 under section 139 of the Act but in the return filed under section 153A, the assessee had shown the agriculture income of ₹ 6,08,384. The assessee explained before the Assessing Officer that it was an inadvertent error on his part and the total agriculture is now shown but no documentary evidence have been produced in support of the contention. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 5,50,000 on account of difference between the agriculture income so shown under section 139 and section 153A of the Act. 12(i) The assessee subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
