9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the alleged addition was made, inspite of specific request was made by the Assessee before AO as well before CIT (A). 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in relying on the assessment of another assessee namely JIK Ind Ltd. without providing copy of order, nor providing statement/ opportunity for cross examination of the' said alleged party. Hence the principle of natural justice is violated at time of assessment as well as before appellate authority. II. Addition of Rs. 2,34,52,668/- as Unexplained Cash Credit. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Its. 2,34,52,668/- as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 in respect of amount deposited in HDFC Bank on the basis of the documents found during search conducted on JIK Industries Pvt. Ltd whereas notice u/s 153C was issued to àssessee without appreciating that nothing incriminating was found against the assessee, thus the addition may be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant has neither done any business nor any financial transaction with JIK Industries Pvt. nor authorized any person by the name of Dilip Shah to transact business. Hence, the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter and to decide the matter afresh. 5. In pursuance of the order u/s 263 of the Act, the AO accorded to the opportunity to the assessee by virtue of letter dated 01.03.2016. The assessee failed to appear before the AO nor adduced any evidence in support of his claim if any. Thereafter unexplained cash credit in sum of Rs. 2,45,84,863/- was added to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and the income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,45,84,860/-.Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NOs. 1& 2 6. We have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. The assessee has challenged the order passed u/s 144/142(1) r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order has already been set aside by Commissioner of Income Tax who passed the order u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee nowhere challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to challenge the order u/s 263 of the Act, therefore, non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) and not supplying the seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 263 orders of the Principal CIT (Central)- 4, Mumbai as no such document have been produced or filed by the appellant before me. Thus undisputedly, the order of the Principal CIT remains in force and unchallenged. In view of this, it can be concluded that the appellant had excepted the findings given by the Principal CIT in the above referred orders u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.3.3. During the assessment proceedings PA'S 263 the AO had issued show cause notice and served the appellant vide letter dated 01.03.2016 and afforded opportunity to the appellant to give explanation and furnish necessary details in respect of their claim on 07.03.2013. This has not been rebutted or contradicted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. Hence, there was no failure in the part of AO in granting opportunity of being heard. 6.3.4 However, during the course of appellate proceedings the Ld. AR submitted copy of reply given by the appellant vide letter 03.03.2016 which was sent to the AO by the registered post/ speed post. The reply of the appellant consists of one paragraph which is reproduced as under: "With reference to your above mentioned letter we would li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se longer route and failed to take up its own responsibility for filing any submission before the AO. Even God help those who help themselves. In this case, in the above given situation it is clear that the appellant itself effectively failed to respond to the show cause dated 01.03.2016 issued and served by the AO. Therefore, no fault can be found or attributed to the AO. In the light of above discussion, it can be concluded that the contents of the purported letter of the appellant dated 03.03.2016 were not available before the AO and therefore filing of copy of such letter during the appellate proceeding will amount to filing of additional evidence before the CIT(A). Here it may be mentioned that the appellant had not filed any letter to admit any additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rule, 1962 and therefore the purported letter dated 03.03.20 16 filed by the assessee along with Xerox copy of affidavit of the Director Shri. Subhash Desai dated 05.03.20 13 is not being admitted since the appellant has neither made any prayer nor given any proper and effected explanation to admit the same and therefore the contention of the appellant is not admitted. 6.3.6. Comin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
