TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred by deleting additions of Rs. 19.63 crores out of addition of Rs. 19.76 crores made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained receipts of unsecured loans. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred by not deciding the case on merits and by deleting the additions with the simple observation that he had gone through the assessment order, remand report and assessee s replies and in his considered view, out of the total additions only an addition of Rs. 13,25,000/- can be sustained u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence in contravention to the provision of Rule 46A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der has made the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of increase in share capital and Rs. 19,76,98,311/- on account of acceptance of unsecured loans. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A) and submitted additional evidence in respect of unsecured loans and share capital. In the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer he objected to the acceptance of additional evidence and also presented his case on merit. However, the Assessing Officer on the basis of submissions of assessee deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, he made a disallowance of Rs. 13,25,000/- on account of cash payment to farmers for purchase of land u/s 40A(3) of the Act as in his opinion the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer for readjudication. 7. The Ld AR, on the other hand, argued that the assessee is a corporate body and it depends for its working upon a number of employees and professionals and due to certain miscommunication amongst its employees the company could not appear before Assessing Officer and as and when the assessment order was received it filed appeal before Ld CIT(A). Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee had no respect for law. He further argued that on the basis of submissions by the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) had exercised his powers available under the Act and after obtaining remand report from Assessing Officer had admitted additional evidence and had given relief to the company after going through all details and documents. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts to denial of justice as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Bidi Works v. CIT 273 ITR 57. Reasons however brief are soul and backbone of the order. A perusal of section 250(6) of the Act shows that the statute mandatorily required the CIT(A) while deciding the appeal to set out the issue for determination and the decision thereof along with reasons for arriving at the decision. The said exercise which is necessary is missing in the impugned order. In the light of the above peculiar facts and circumstances and position of law, we are of the view that the action of Ld CIT(A) was not in conformity with the requirement of the Income Tax Act. At the same time, the Assessing Officer has arrived at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
