TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to submit relevant documentary evidence during assessment proceedings and made addition. CIT(A) simply reproduced the observations of the AO and confirmed the addition by observing that even during the course of appellate proceedings the assessee has not given address of loan creditors, date on which alleged loan was obtained and whether the same was received through cheque or cash. CIT(A) also observed that in absence of date of obtaining loan, it cannot be said that they are old loans. No mention regarding issuance of any notice to the assessee or any notesheet entry seeking the required details by the first appellate authority. If the AO or appellate authority is not specifically asking the assessee to submit specified documentary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 2, Bhubaneswar, dated 07.05.2018 in First Appeal No.0134/2017-18 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal, which read as follows :- 1. For that, on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law, by confirming the addition of unsecured loan of ₹ 4,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. as not genuine whereas the same were not verified by the Ld. A.O. The assessee had submitted the list of 26 persons from whom loan had been taken along with the amount of loan taken . However the Ld. A.O. had not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to submit the address and date of the loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary evidence explaining and justifying the existence, capacity of the creditors, genuineness creditworthiness of the transaction and he did not specifically ask to furnish the relevant documentary evidence and the assessee due to ignorance could not file the same before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. AR further submitted that even during the first appellate proceedings, ld.CIT(A) did not provide opportunity to submit the relevant documents and simply confirmed the observations and findings of AO and the assessee remained empty handed before the authorities below. 5. Ld. AR vehemently pointed out that the impugned loan was taken by the assessee during immediately preceding financial period pertaining to the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly be restored to the file of AO only for this purpose. 7. On careful consideration of the above submissions, I am satisfied that the assessee could not file the relevant documentary evidence pertaining to the immediately preceding assessment year 2014-2015 and other relevant details establishing the existence, capacity of the creditors as well as creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. I may point out that as per rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 (in short the ITAT Rules, 1963 ), the additional evidence, which could not be submitted, may be allowed to be admitted and considered in certain limited conditions. For the sake of completeness in this order, the rule 29 is being reproduced below:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rule 29 does not apply. However, second limb of rule has application to the facts and circumstance of the present case as from the orders of the authorities below i.e. from para 3 and 4 of assessment order, I observe that the AO asked the assessee to furnish certain documents and in reply to which the assessee through its AR submitted books of accounts, which were examined and placed on the record. Thereafter the AO perused the balance sheet and picked up the issue of unsecured loan of ₹ 4 lakhs shown by the assessee due as on 31.03.2015. Thereafter the AO alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the names and address of the person from whom the firm has received unsecured loan an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, second limb of rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is to be pressed in service for admission and consideration of additional evidence submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal. 11. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussions, the additional evidence filed by the assessee including other relevant details of the creditors are relevant and necessary evidence, which should be taken on record to meet the ends of justice and to sub-serve the purpose and cause of justice. Therefore, application of the assessee for taking additional evidence is allowed under rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and additional evidence is taken on record for consideration. 12. Furthermore, since the AO was not allowed to verify and examine the documentary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
