Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 31 (2) , NEW DELHI Versus JAGMEET SINGH BARAR AND VICE-VERSA

2017 (1) TMI 617 - ITAT DELHI

Unexplained cash deposit in bank account - admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 - Assessee has not filed all the additional evidences i.e. 7 sale deeds of land from which the assesseee has received ₹ 52,07,500/- before this Bench - Held that:- The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in admitting these additional evidences is contrary to the conditions as laid down under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Assessee has not established before us that the AO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above, we are of the considered view that the additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be thoroughly examined at the level of the AO. Therefore, we set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after thoroughly examining the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No.1850/DEL .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nue s Appeal read as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by admitting the additional evidences during the appellate proceedings under Rule 46A despite the fact that none of the conditions laid down in Rule 46A are applicable to the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions of ₹ 51,80,000/- made by the AO during the assessment proceedings on account of income from undisclosed sources u/s. 69 of the Act. 3. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 6,20,000/- out of total addition of ₹ 58,00,000/- on account of deposits in bank account. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition to the extent of ₹ 6,20,000/- out of total addition of ₹ 58,00,000/- on account of deposits in bank account is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dd, amend, modify, delete any of the ground(s) of cross objection before or at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income of ₹ 53,288/- on 27.3.2010 which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act). Later on the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the same, the A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evidence supporting his explanation especially for the sale of agricultural land. Secondly, the AO also found from the Bank Statement of the assessee that mature proceeds of FDRs created to his account includes the amount of interest also which has also not been declared as income of the assessee as his income in his return of income which amounting to ₹ 2,92,799/-. Finally the AO has completed the assessment by making the addition of ₹ 58 lacs as income from undisclosed sources u/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

before the Tribunal. 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal. He further stated that on the basis of the AIR information, the AO called the explanation from the assessee regarding cash deposit of ₹ 63,45,000/- in the Bank account of the assessee, but in response to the same the assessee explained that ₹ 25,50,807/- is a withdrawal of cash; ₹ 34 lacs is a sale from ancestral agricultural lan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

espite the fact that none of the conditions laid in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 are applicable to the case of the assessee. He further stated that no opportunity. For verifying the additional evidence has been given to the AO by the Ld. CIT(A) and he has wrongly admitted the additional evidence and deleted the addition in dispute. He requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the AO to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and decide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as received and assessee has also filed Cash Flow Statement alongwith the details submissions as well as Medical Certificate of Doctor stating that Smt. Jagdish Kaur mother of the assessee was a serious patient of DEMEMTIA since last 6-8 years. He further submitted that the assessee being the Legal Heir is looking after his mother and keep the sale consideration with him which later on was deposited in the bank. Since the evidence were not submitted before the AO, therefore, these evidences were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arding the admission of additional evidence during the appellate proceedings under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing hereunder the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as under:- Production of additional evidence before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cause from producing before the [Assessing Officer] any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal ; or (d) where the [Assessing Officer] has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. (2) No evidence shall be admitted under sub-rule (1) unless the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] records in writing the reasons for its admission. (3) The [De .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ower of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness, to enable him to dispose of the appeal, or for any other substantial cause including the enhancement of the assessment or penalty (whether on his own motion or on the request of the [Assessing Officer]) under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.] 9.1 After going through .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in support his contention, the assessee has not filed any evidence before the AO, in spite of the requests of the AO. Secondly, the AO has also asked the assessee about the credit of interest of FDR in his bank statement amounting to ₹ 2,92,799/- which the assessee has not shown in his return of income. No explanation has been given by the assessee in this regard before the AO and AO has no alternative except to complete the assessment as per law and hence, he completed the assessment u/s. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hown in the return of income also. No doubt that as per impugned order the assessee has filed the additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith submission as well as 7 sale deeds of land from which a sum of ₹ 52,07,500/- was received by the assessee and the Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences and deleted the addition on the basis of the additional evidence which has not been properly confronted to the AO and opportunity of thoroughly examination of the same has also not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso not filed any Remand Report dated 5.8.2013 for perusal of the Bench and taken the issue in dispute very lightly when the Department has challenged the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. This Bench has right to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 before Ld. First Appellate Authority which has not been filed by the assessee for supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version