TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentiary support of his contention and CIT(A) ought to have record in writing the reason for its admission of additional evidences before him - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) can admit additional evidence if he finds it crucial and necessary for the disposal of the appeal. We think if additional evidence is without any blemish and in order to advances the cause of justice the same ought to be admitted. After considering the plethora of judgments, the paramount consideration of the adjudicating authority should be fair disposal of the appeal/case in order to protect interest of justice. As in the present case, assessee could not file certain details before the learned AO but he filed before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) forwarded same details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in admitting the additional evidences merely relying on the decisions without examining their applicability on the facts of the case of the assessee. 3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the additions made by the AO as per provision of section 68 of the Act, though the assessee could not fully furnish the complete details of donors as required under section 68 of the Act, at assessment stage and even during the remand proceedings. 4) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs5,60,87,760/- towards corpus donations without appreciating that the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act vides no. 65-R-45/74-75/CIT.V dated. 15/12/1975 with Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-V,Ahmedabad. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of computation of income, it was found that assessee has claimed corpus donation amounting to Rs. 6,27,71,069/-. In this regard, during the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated 15.11.2017 and 18.12.2017 assessee was asked to provide the supporting evidences like letter of specific direction given by the donor, confirmation letter of the donor and copy of return of income of donors for A.Y. 2015-16 for the cross verification. Assessee was also asked to show cause as to why in case of failing in the providing the called for details, amount received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c direction given by the donor regarding the utilization of the fund. In this regard, assessee has submitted letter of specific direction given by the donors for Rs. 5,50,00,000/- only. For difference amount of Rs.10,87,760/- (5,60,87,760 - 5,50,00,000) assessee has not provided any letter for specific direction. 3.4 During the course of assessment proceeding, assessee was asked to provide the supporting evidences like donation receipts for corpus donation received by the trust. In response to said letter assessee had submitted the copy of donation receipts for amount Rs.5,53,94,000/- only. For difference amount of Rs.6,93,760/- assessee has not provided any supporting evidences. Further, on verification of donation receipt, it was seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 68 of The Act. Till date assessee has not provided any supporting evidences except the copy of ledger accounts. Further, on verification of ledger accounts provided by the assessee for voluntary contribution received by the trust, it was seen that as per ledger accounts, total voluntary contribution received by the trust is Rs. 2,02,93,288/- whereas in computation of income voluntary contribution shown by the trust is Rs. 2,22,51,323/-. Thus, for amount of Rs. 19,58,035/- assessee has not provided any explanation and for the rest amount assessee has not provided any supporting evidences. Hence, regarding the voluntary contribution of Rs. 2,22,51,323/- explanation given by the assessee is not satisfactory. After considering the subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the plethora of judgments, the paramount consideration of the adjudicating authority should be fair disposal of the appeal/case in order to protect interest of justice. As in the present case, assessee could not file certain details before the learned AO but he filed before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) forwarded same details for the comments of the learned AO and sought remand report. In remand report, learned AO did not doubt the content of documents but objected to filing of additional evidence under Rule 46A. After considering the remand report, CIT(A) decided the matter. As per Income Tax Act, learned CIT(A) has co-terminus power. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We agree with the finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
