TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals) and after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee, decide the addition u/s. 68 afresh in accordance with the law. As far as the refusal of the AO to allow set off of current year business loss against income added u/s. 68 of the Act by relying on the provisions of section 115BBE(2) which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017, it is not in dispute before us that the CBDT in Circular No.11 of 2019 dated 19.6.2019 clarified that the amendment sought to be relied upon by the AO is applicable only prospectively and therefore not applicable to AY 2015-16. Hence even in the event of addition being made u/s. 68 in the set aside proceedings, the assessee should be given the benefit of set off of current year s business loss against the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. - ITA No.3125/Bang/2018 (Assessment year: 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 20-9-2019 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE Appellant by: Shri Sandeep C., CA Respondent by: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER Per N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the income added u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee made two submissions, viz., out of the sum of ₹ 28,37,588 added as unexplained credits on account of purchases, many purchases were opening balance of the earlier assessment year and therefore the opening balance of earlier assessment years cannot be added as income u/s. 68 of the Act because under Sec.68 of the Act applies only to any sum credited in the books of taxpayer in any financial year. Since the opening balance is not a sum credited in the books of taxpayer during the previous year, Sec.68 will not apply to such opening balance. A sum of ₹ 14,92,988 out of the sum of ₹ 28,37,588 added by the AO was claimed as opening balance as on 31.3.2015 and therefore cannot be considered as credit entry in the books of account of the previous year relevant to AY 2015-16. The assessee in this regard sought to file ledger account of the various sundry creditors for purchases. Apart from the above submissions, the assessee also submitted that there were certain errors in the credit balances shown in the books of account which were inadvertent errors and if those errors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Fiber Glass 38. Ledger extract of Krishna Fab Tech 6. The assessee filed an application before the CIT(Appeals) for accepting the aforesaid documents as additional evidence. The assessee submitted that it had discontinued its business operations in June, 2015 and therefore could not file confirmation letters from the creditors in the course of assessment proceedings. Even before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee expressed inability to file confirmation from the parties, but submitted that ledger extracts of the sundry creditors and debtors would prove the errors in the closing balances in the sundry creditors account, which will have a bearing on the quantum of addition to be made. 7. The assessee prayed that the documents which are sought to be filed before the CIT(Appeals) should be admitted as additional evidence to enable proper disposal of appeal and in the interest of justice. 8. The CIT(Appeals), however, refused to accept the additional evidence as in the opinion of the CIT(A), the assessee cannot seek to file additional evidence in the appellate proceedings as a matter of right and has to satisfy the conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 appellant, or (b) to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. (4) Nothing contained in this rule shall affect the power of the [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)] to direct the production of any documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
