TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our opinion, the action of the Ld. CIT-A, in deleting the addition is well reasoned and justified as the source of investment stands duly explained and which is also verified by the Assessing Officer. Receipt of payment from various parties - reconciliation of the TDS with incomes/receipts declared in the return of income - N.P. determination - Held that:- Assessee has explained payments corresponding to TCS reflected in the form No. 26- AS related to the assessee. In the additional evidences, the assessee furnished copy of ledger accounts of all the relevant parties appearing in the books of accounts of the AOP showing the purchases made from those parties and the payments from bank account of the AOP to those parties. Once the payment to those parties has been verified from the books of the AOP, in our opinion no addition could have been made in the case of assessee. In these circumstances, the finding of the Ld. CITA on the issue in dispute is comprehensive and well reasoned and we do not find any error in the same - ITA No. 2198/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - SH. I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE For The Appellant : Sh. F.R. Meena, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. The assessee filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 26,28,760/- on 5/02/2010. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) was issued and duly served, however, there was no compliance. Subsequently, notices issued under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were also not complied. In view of the limitation for completion of the assessment, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act on 27/12/2011, relying upon the material available with him and assessed the total income at ₹ 2,19,52,911/-, after making following additions: 1. Unexplained cash deposit in bank account Rs.53,93,467/- 2. Unexplained payment through credit cards Rs.10,98,425/- 3. Payment of excise duty Rs.80,00,000 4. Unexplained investment in purchase of car Rs.20,00,000/- 5. Business income Rs.28,32,259 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted ; or ( b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the 97[Assessing Officer] ; or ( c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient 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 [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] shall not take into account any evidence produced under sub-rule (1) unless the [Assessing Officer] has been allowed a reasonable opportunity - ( a) to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR, the additional evidences were admitted and a copy of the same were given to the AO for submission of Remand Report after going through the written submissions and examination of additional evidences. The Remand Report was received from the AO dt. 03.07.2013 and the rejoinder was submitted by the learned AR on 07.08.2013. The grounds of appeal taken by the appellant are decided hereunder after taking into consideration the additional evidences, arguments of the learned AR, Remand Report of the AO and the rejoinder given by the appellant. 4.5 The Ld. CIT-A, while discussing the addition of ₹ 53,93,467/- against cash deposit, has mentioned that the Assessing Officer has not given any adverse comment in respect of the cash deposits. Similarly, while dealing the other additions, also the Ld. CIT-A has taken into consideration the comments of the Assessing Officer, on merit of the additions. Further, it was contended that the assessee was not available at the address mentioned in the return and, therefore, there was a sufficient cause in failure to produce those documents. 4.6 In view of above facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT-A has duly complied wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AOP. The Assessing Officer also verified from the books of accounts of the AOP, the fact of deposit of ₹ 3,30,16,69,936/- as deposit of licence fee by the AOP, however, he said that bifurcations of amount of ₹ 79,50,000/- invested on behalf of the assessee was not provided. The Ld. CIT-A after taking into account the explanation of the assessee deleted the addition with following observations: 4.5 In the next ground of appeal, the appellant has impugned the addition of ₹ 80 lacs made by the AO towards amount deposited with State Excise Duty. The Id. AR of the appellant has submitted that the appellant deposited ₹ 80 lacs towards State Excise Duty for the liquor shops for which licences were granted to him for doing the business of liquor retail trading. The appellant has submitted that the shops were being run by an AOP in the name and style of M/s. Punjab Trading Associates and the appellant was one of the members of the AOP. The AO had acknowledged this fact in the Remand Report and has stated that the copy of Deed of Incorporation of AOP has been placed on record. The Id. AR submitted that the entire license fees of ₹ 79,50,000/- was paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, the Assessing Officer verified these facts. In view of the verification by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT-A accepted the explanation of the assessee and deleted the addition. In our opinion, the action of the Ld. CIT-A, in deleting the addition is well reasoned and justified as the source of investment stands duly explained and which is also verified by the Assessing Officer. In view of these facts, we find no error in the decision of the Ld. CIT-A and accordingly, we uphold the same. 8. With regard to the addition of ₹ 28,32,259/-, the facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer observed receipt of payment of ₹ 2,83,22,590/- from various parties. In absence of reconciliation of the TDS with incomes/receipts declared in the return of income, the Assessing Officer, estimated net profit at the rate of 10%, which was computed to ₹ 28,32,259/-. Before the Ld. CIT-A, on behalf of the assessee, it was submitted that the amount in question of ₹ 2,83,22,590/- was not received as payments from various parties and in fact, this amount was spent towards payments made to the parties for purchase of liquor from them and on which TCS was deducted and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dences have been placed on record and had been verified by him. He had also objected to the fact that the requisite Power of Attorney has not been submitted by the Id. AR. In the light of the fact that notices could not be served on the appellant during assessment stage and the assessment order was passed u/s. 144 and also keeping in view the fact that additional evidences submitted go to the root cause of the grounds of appeal and also that grave injustice would be done to the appellant if the additional evidences are not accepted, it is decided that the additional evidences are accepted in the light of the judgment of Hon ble IT AT in the case of ACIT vs. Sh. Joginder Singh in ITA No. 2942 (Del) of 2011. The Power of Attorney of the Id. AR has been placed on record. The copy of accounts of all the relevant parties as appearing in the books of the AOP M/s. Punjab Trading Associates showing purchases made from the above parties and also its payments from the bank accounts of the AOP have been placed on record to substantiate that the purchases to the tune of ₹ 2,83,22,590/- have been made by the AOP and have been duly accounted for in its books. The addition of 10% of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
