TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opportunity was given to the assessee to comment upon the said report. It is also noticed that the CIT(A) neither rejected nor accepted the additional evidences furnished by the assessee first time before him. We therefore considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 306/Chd/2021 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2022 - N.K. Saini, Vice President And Sudhanshu Srivastava, Member (J) For the Appellant : Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Ranje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of ₹ 1,43,707/- as interest income which in fact was short term Capital gains in utter disregard of the explanation and evidence placed on record only on the basis of remand report and as such the addition upheld without application of mind is arbitrary and unjustified. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in observing that the assessee appellant had failed to substantiate the claim before the Assessing officer when in fact no notice was given by the assessing officer to appear before him and as such the additions upheld is arbitrary and unjustified. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 8. That the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year 2011-12 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation. Circle - Chandigarh making addition amounting to ₹ 2,58,13,707/- to die total income of the assesse. In respect of the above it is submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of investment made by the assessee in mutual fund amounting to ₹ 2,56,70,000/- and interest income amounting to ₹ 1,43,707/-. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making the above additions. Since the address available with the department i.e. Street No. 5, Rohan Road, Kuldeep Nagar Basti, Jodhewal, Ludhiana was not correct. Moreover the assessee has also moved from its overseas address i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s available on records in shape of bank account statements and treated the entire investment made by the assessee in the mutual funds as unexplained investments and made addition thereon. The Ld. Assessing Officer has treated the entire investments made by the assessee as unexplained and has not relied on the information available on record. As per section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessing Officer after taking into account all relevant material gathered make assessment to the total income or loss to best of his judgment. The Act emphasis on all relevant material gathered and best of his judgment in tire above case the Ld. Assessing officer has called information from various concerned authorities u/s. 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/- during the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee gross total income during the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2011,-12 amounted to ₹ 1,49,646/- i.e. (Income from Short Term Capital Gain amounting to ₹ 1,43,707/- Income from Saving Bank Account Interest amounting to ₹ 5,939/-). Since the assessee gross total income during the Assessment Year 2011-12 was below the threshold exemption limit the assessee did not file his return of income for the said period. Therefore, the Ld. Assessing officer has erred in making the above mentioned addition. As the assessing officer has erred in making above addition hence, the same may kindly be deleted. 5.1. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant has failed to substantiate its claim before the A.O. regarding the additional documents submitted before this office to justify the sources of investments in mutual funds. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. 6. Now the assessee e is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the A.O. framed the assessment ex parte by making the arbitrary additions and that the assessee furnished all the evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) who neither rejected nor accepted those evidence furnished before him but acted only on the report of the A.O. without confronting the same to the assessee. It was stated that in the subsequent years the A.O. accepted the investment made by the assessee in mutual funds. However for the ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
