TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O despite being given opportunity by the AO during remand proceedings. The arguments of the assessee that opportunity to cross-examination was not given falls flat especially when the two persons have stated before the AO on oath that neither they have signed the affidavit nor have given any such amount to the assessee. Similarly Ms. Bhawna Narula was never produced before the Assessing Officer for recording her statement despite being asked by the AO to do so since the summon issued to her was returned unserved. Assessee also failed to justify the source of the balance amount of ₹ 75000/- i.e. (1985000 -19,10,000 i.e. (3,00,000+250000+13,60,000). Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No.5134/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2019 - Sh. R. K. Panda, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. D. C. Garg, CA For the Respondent : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.11.2017 of the CIT(A), Faridabad relating to A. Y. 2011-12. 2. This is the second round of litigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue. 6. During such set aside proceedings the assessee filed certain additional evidences before the CIT(A) with application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded those additional evidences to the Assessing Officer to submit his comments and report thereon. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of such additional evidences on the ground that despite repeated opportunities the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer also submitted his report on merits with respect to each addition made. The Ld. CIT(A) forwarded the copy of the remand to the assessee and asked for his comments. After considering the submission of the assessee, contents of the remand report of the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder to such remand report by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted an amount of ₹ 6,80,000/- and sustained the amount of ₹ 19,85,000/- by observing as under :- 9. Ground No.3 and 4 deals w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit is correct. The other facts regarding giving of ₹ 2,50,000/- for getting Demand Draft in favour of Sh. Suresh and Chakresh are not correct. He had never given any amount of ₹ 2,50,0001- to Sh. Padam lal Dua in cash. He did not know any Suresh or Chakresh. As evident from above the appellant's contention that this money had been given by Sh. Sanjay Khattar to the appellant fails on all counts. Hence I see no reason to provide any relief to the appellant for this amount. (iii) Bhawna Narula : The relevant part of the remand report on this amount of ₹ 13,60,000/- is as below: Summon to Ms Bhawna Narula received back unserved with the postal comments BaarBaar lene wala bandmilta hai . Sh. Padam laL Dua, assessee was intimated telephonically about this fact and was requested to produce Ms Bhawna Narula for recording of her statement. But all in vain. As evident from above the appellant's contention that this money had been given by Ms. Bhawna Narula to the appellant fails on all counts. Hence I see no reason to provide any relief to the appellant for this a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax(Appeals), Faridabad,has erred in law as well as onfacts and in circumstances of the case in upholding addition merely on the basis of statement of depositorsgiven in the remand proceedings in deviation with the affidavits originally submitted by them. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Faridabad, has erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case in upholding addition merely on the basis of remand report prepared by the AO without providing opportunity to cross examine the persons who have deviated from their original affidavits, hence the AO as well as CIT(A) have grossly violated principals of natural justice. 5. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, has erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case in upholding addition without considering the Rejoinder filed on behalf of the assessee against the remand report submitted by the AO. 6. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, as well as the AO both have erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case in not taking any action against those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer. However, when the Assessing Officer recorded the statements of those persons on oath they flatly denied to have made the cash deposits on behalf of the assessee in his bank account. Therefore, when the persons have denied to have made such cash deposits, the Ld. CIT(A) had correctly sustained the addition of ₹ 19,85,000/-made to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) being in accordance with law and fact should be upheld. 10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and Ld.CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case had made addition of ₹ 26,65,000/- being the unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. I find the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) in the first round and the matter came before the Tribunal. I find the Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2016 restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with certain directions. I find the Ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings admitted the additional evidences so filed before him and forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
