9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the addition of Rs.2,62,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash receipt by assessee by admitting additional evidences which tantamount to violation of rule 46A of IT Act. iii. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and add other ground of appeal. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.54,34,458/- on 29/10/2005. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Nagpur, that certain incriminating documents related to the assessee were seized in the search action at the residence of Sh. Vaibhav Suryakant, Japuria indicating unaccounte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that concern, were filed before the Assessing Officer. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee filed other documents like building layout plan, land for residential flats, agreements of allotment/registered sale deed in respect of flats/shops and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) admitted those documents without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut the same. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed the impugned order relying on those documents. According to the Senior Departmental Representative that admitting of additional evidences amounted to violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and, thus, requested the matter may be restored back to the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e did not belong to the assessee. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the above contention of the Assessing Officer stating that it was not the correct statement of facts. However, we find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not given any reasons as how it was not correct statement of facts. He neither brought on record any evidence in support that those documents were filed before the Assessing Officer nor confronted those documents to the Assessing Officer. Further, we find that before us the learned counsel of the assessee referred to the letter dated 25th of March 2013 of the Authorized Representative the assessee , which is claimed to have containing all the said documents and filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
