TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted that even the CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee that this entry was on the basis of evidence at that time and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the original assessment order, meaning thereby, the evidence was available during original assessment proceedings, which clearly proves that the amount was in the name of M/s Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has duly explained that the opening entry to the credit of M/s Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. is only carried forward balance as on 31/03/1991, which is fortified by the copy of the audited balance sheet of the accounts of the assessee, thus, the opening balance cannot be treated as undisclosed income - Decided in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the ld. DR, Shri Suman Kumar, defended the addition and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessment order u/s 143(3) and r.w.s 254 of the Act was passed on 10/02/2006 by the Assessing Officer, determining total income at ₹ 23,16,050/-. While doing so, an amount of ₹ 4,15,000/- was added as the Ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that the debit amount of ₹ 4,15,000/- in the name of M/s Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. could not be explained with the help of supporting evidence. It is noted that on earlier occasion, the matter travelled up to the Tribunal, wherein, vide order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 4,15,000/- relating to M/s.Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Learned Counsel for the assessee requested that the assessee may be allowed one more chance to lead its evidence before the CIT(A). Ld. DR has opposed the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the .assessee. He submitted that the assessment was set .aside by the order of the Tribunal on 24.03.04 and the flood waters came in the month of July 05 and therefore, the assessee was having more than a year its disposal to file the necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no justification for allowing one more chance to tile assessee. 3. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We find that in pursuance of setting aside the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee was rejected. It is also noted that identical plea was raised by the assessee before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), wherein, in para-2.6 of the impugned order, it was noted that there were series of entries in the books of the assessee by way of transferring various credits through general entries. The amount of ₹ 4,15,000/- from M/s Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. was considered as unexplained credit. The whole addition is on the premise that the assessee could not file confirmation from M/s Jade Investment and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. However, from page-36 of the paper book in para 4(c) of the assessment order dated 14/03/1995, there is specific mention that this is a credit from the said party i.e. M/s Jade In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
