TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the explanation offered by the Assessee was tenable. As further noted by the CIT (A), the AO failed to furnish to the Assessee a copy of the statement of Mr S. K. Gupta, which formed the main basis for making the additions. Mr Gupta was not even offered for cross-examination. - ITA 475/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : None ORDER CM 22511/2017 (delay) 1. The delay of 58 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. ITA 475/2017 2. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 2nd September, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanies controlled by him. Consequently, the AO held that ₹ 60 lakhs, together with the commission of ₹ 60,000/-, was to be treated as the income of the Assessee under Section 68 read with Section 69C of the Act. 6. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 16th September, 2015. The CIT (A) observed that although the AO had addressed letters to the bank with which CCRL was maintaining its accounts for the concerned period, the data collected was not mentioned in the assessment order. Excepting the above exercise, no other enquiry/verification was undertaken by the AO to disprove the claims of the Assessee. It was noted that the entire re-assessment proceedings was based on the information p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for adjournment. Nevertheless, the ITAT examined the merit of the case itself and confirmed the finding of the CIT (A) that the additions made by the AO were not justified. 10. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 to urge that the onus lay on the Assessee to explain the income from undisclosed sources. In the present case that burden was not discharged by the Assessee. According to him, the CIT (A) failed to notice that the AO had in fact conducted the enquiry and it is the Assessee who is unable to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the credit entries in his account. 11. The Court is unable to agree with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
