TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, is not to provide further innings or with a view to fill up the gaps in its case by a party and strengthen its case. We, accordingly, have no hesitation to hold that there is no requirement for the said 'evidence', even the credibility of which is suspect. The assessee's application or plea in this regard, i.e., admission of additional evidence, is accordingly rejected. Yes, of course, there is the quantitative aspect inasmuch as both the authorities have arrived at a different amount of the addition, resulting in cross appeals. The same though is independent of the evidence under reference. On merits bald statement before the first appellate authority can hardly be considered as an explanation. The provisions of section 69/69A stand rightly invoked by the Revenue. Quantum of the addition - We find the basis of a peak amount, as adopted by the ld. CIT(A), as reasonable. AO has himself allowed the assessee credit for ₹ 1 lac (out of ₹ 2.35 lacs withdrawn) against deposits in the SBI account, as well as for ₹ 0.10 lac withdrawn from PNB a/c, so that it is not that he was not alive to the same. The balance ₹ 1.35 lac stands withdrawn fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicate in accordance with law by issuing definite findings of fact and after allowing the assessee an opportunity to state and prove his case. We decide accordingly. In the result the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the Revenue's appeal is partly allowed - ITA 1880 and 1981 (Mds.) of 2015 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Sanjay Arora, Member (A) And G. Pavan Kumar, Member (J) For the Appellant : G. Baskar, Advocate For the Respondent : A.V. Srrekanth, Jt. CIT ORDER Sanjay Arora, Member (A) 1. These are cross Appeals arising from the Order dated 15/6/2015 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, partly allowing the Assessees' appeal contesting his assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) dated 18/2/2014 for assessment year (AY) 2011-12. Cash deposits of ₹ 42.28 lacs and ₹ 13.87 lacs during the relevant previous year were found in the assessee's savings bank account with Punjab National Bank, Mogappair East and State Bank of India, Padi, respectively. These bank accounts were not reflected in the books of the assessees business, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during hearing. On a further enquiry by the Bench as to if the sale (of property) had matured, even if subsequently, which would find reflection in the assessee's return, he replied in the negative, furnishing no further explanation. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The law 3.1 Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, which reads as under, is a provision regarding production of additional evidence before the Tribunal: '29. Production of additional evidence before the Tribunal The parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined or any affidavit to be filed to enable it to pass orders or for any other substantial cause, or, if the income-tax authorities have decided the case without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to adduce evidence either on points specified by them, or not specified by them, the Tribunal, for reasons to be recorded, may allow such document to be produced or witness to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 41, Rule 27(1) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to which rule 29 is similar in terms, that the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only where it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment but also for any other substantial cause. There may well be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce the judgment on the state of record as it is, so that it cannot strictly be said that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce the judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up, so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. This aspect was again emphasized recently by the Hon'ble Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin [2012] 8 SCC 148, wherein it was explained that the words 'for any other substantial cause' must be read with the word 'requires' at the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incomprehensible, if not perplexing. To begin with, what is the legal validity of the said Agreements, which being in relation to the transfer of immovable property are required by law to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908? Then, again, it is not accompanied by any details, viz. confirmation by the proposed buyers, stating their PANs, or if the amount 'paid' by them was accounted for. Though, strictly speaking, the same should not concern the assessee, we refer to this as this could perhaps be the reason for not divulging these agreements. Or, is it that the same are an afterthought, with the assessee taking time to identify persons who could be said to have paid him cash to him against the purported sale? There is no explanation as to why the entire consideration has been paid in 'cash', i.e., assuming that the sale is otherwise accounted for or intended to be disclosed. Two, why had the same, agreed to be closed by 31/12/2010, not been even years later, particularly considering that the vendees had paid a substantial sum, i.e., both in absolute terms as well as relatively, i.e., in relation to the sale consideration, and could enforce performance throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The aspect of 'any other substantial cause' stands also explained by the higher courts as in terms of the requirement by the tribunal for pronouncing its order in a satisfactory manner. We have analyzed the assessee's conduct as well as the documents prayed for admission in light of the obtaining facts and the position of law, to find that the same, on the contrary, need not be taken on record and only need to be ignored. The admission, as explained, is not to provide further innings or with a view to fill up the gaps in its case by a party and strengthen its case. We, accordingly, have no hesitation to hold that there is no requirement for the said 'evidence', even the credibility of which is suspect. The assessee's application or plea in this regard, i.e., admission of additional evidence, is accordingly rejected. Yes, of course, there is the quantitative aspect inasmuch as both the authorities have arrived at a different amount of the addition, resulting in cross appeals. The same though is independent of the evidence under reference. On merits, we, considering the material on record, find the assessee's case qua the impugned addition, which stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... takes this figure at ₹ 13.87 lacs (refer para 5.5 of his order), the ld. CIT(A) adopts this at ₹ 20.39 lacs. With regard to the credit of ₹ 21.93 lacs in respect of cash credit in the assessee's capital account, ostensibly against 'journal entries' 'allowed' by the ld. CIT(A), we observe that the Revenue is rightly aggrieved (per Ground 2.3 of it's appeal) inasmuch as no opportunity to examine and, where so, meet and/or rebut has been provided to the AO. Further, who are the creditors; their capacity; the genuineness of the transactions, which aspects remain obscure or over-looked. In fact, it does not appear that the ld. CIT(A) has 'allowed' credit, or else the aggregate of cash deposits (as considered by him) would not amount to ₹ 103.07 lacs, i.e., as against ₹ 118.90 lacs by the AO, or at a difference of ₹ 15.83 lacs. Decision 3.4 In view of the foregoing, even as we confirm the addition in principle, the matter with regard to its quantification, being inchoate, clearly requires determination, to be decided after due verification, of course after allowing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
