TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o support such additions. However, in the instant case, there is no material on record and there is no whisper in the assessment order as well as in the order of ld. CIT(A) to show as to what material was found at the time of search, which led the Assessing Officer to make the impugned addition. The search memo is not available before us to know about the material found in the search. CIT(A) has also not recorded any finding as to the material found in the course of search. Therefore, unless it is ascertained as to what material was found on search and whether it was incriminating or not, the decision of making addition by the Assessing Officer and its deletion by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be supported. Besides, the ld. CIT(A) has admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75,000/- made by the AO w.r.t. commission paid @ 5% for procurement of accommodation entries through share application money from non-descript companies. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A. 4. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 2. The assessee has also challenged the impugned order in its cross objection on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in not quashing the addition of ₹ 1,50,75000/- (wrongly mentioned as ₹ 15,75,000/-) on the ground that the additions in question have no relation whatsoever to the material or evidence found in the course of search and there were no pending assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the total income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act treating the same as accommodation entry received by the assessee in the form of share application money. The AO further made addition of ₹ 75,000/- on account of commission paid on procuring such accommodation entries. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who after considering the assessments of six share applicants out of eight and also that there is no evidence found during the search indicating such activities of the assessee (taking accommodation entries) to support the allegation of Revenue, deleted the addition of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- made u/s. 68 and ₹ 75,000/- made by AO on account of alleged commission paid by assessee. The Revenue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Assessing Officer has collected the information about share application money from the books of accounts of assessee and balance sheet. It was also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) should have also deleted the addition on further ground that there was no pending assessment proceeding on the date of search which could be abated under second proviso to section 153A(1). The AO, therefore, was not justified in making addition on the basis of material gathered in the course of assessment proceedings particularly when no assessment proceedings were abated under the provisions of the Act. He, therefore, urged that the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whatsoever, submitted before the ld. CIT(A). The remand report of the AO is also not available on record before us to decide the issue of admissibility of additional evidences filed before the ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh after making proper examination of records in the light of observations made above. Needless to say, the parties shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue deserves to be allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since the matter under consideration has been remanded to the ld. CIT(A), the cross-objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuos and is accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
