TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame on record for consideration on merits. CIT(A), however, failed to do so, but refused to admit the same, which is not tenable in view of the aforesaid decisions. We further note that factum of calling of remand report on merits of the additional evidences etc. does not arise in the case of Moser Bear India Ltd.[ 2008 (12) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] relied upon by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court, in our opinion, does not help the Revenue, having been rendered in different context. Besides, on perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking order on merits of the case also by recording his specific findings on the objections of the AO and the submissions of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition of Rs.26,91,22,083/- as bogus liability on account of sundry creditors and (iii) disallowance of Rs.63,48,037/- on account of depreciation. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Nil. However, the assessee had declared income u/s. 115JB of the IT Act at Rs.2,50,088/- as net profit on maintenance fee received of Rs.35,01,12,323/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 25.02.2011 requiring the assessee to furnish certain details/information such as Tax Audit report u/s. 44AB for A.Y. 2009-10; Audited sets of accounts for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2008-09 including balance sheet and profit Loss Account along with all i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all these confirmations were signed by the common director of the companies, Ms. Sweta. The AO also noticed that auditors reported in clause 1(a) of annexure to Form 3CA that the assessee has not maintained proper records showing full particulars including quantitative details and situation of fixed assets. It was, therefore, observed that in absence of any details and complete documentary evidences and in view of observations of the auditors, the utilization of assets for the purpose of business could not be verified. The AO, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and for want of complete supporting details/documentary evidences, rejected the account books of assessee u/s. 145 of the Act and disallowed the claim of sundry creditors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, the AO reported that since the Assessee failed to establish that it was prevented by sufficient cause to produce the evidences in assessment proceedings, hence, the additional evidences furnished by the assessee for the CIT(A) are not fit to be admitted. Again, the ld. CIT(A) vide letter dated 05.12.2012, the AO was asked to submit fresh report on merit of the case which he furnished vide letter dated 25.04.2013. The assessee also filed rejoinder of the remand reports as reproduced in the impugned order. After making such a vast exercise, the ld. CIT(A) finally did not admit the additional evidence on record placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moser Bear India Ltd vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the AO was sought by the ld. CIT(A) on the said additional evidences, he finally did not admit such evidences for consideration. Such an action of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in view of the proposition made in the case of Sahrukh Khan vs. DCIT (supra), where the Tribunal has held as under : Thus on reading of all these three sub-rules it is implicitly clear that first stage is the assessee sought permission for the admission of additional evidence, the next stage would come that such permission would be granted by recording reasons and thereafter the additional evidence would be sent to the assessing Officer for examination. In the present case though from the record it is not discernible whether permission to adduce addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew in the matter has been cited by the ld. DR, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit the additional evidence. Besides, on perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has not passed speaking order on merits of the case also by recording his specific findings on the objections of the AO and the submissions of the assessee, but has simply endorsed the views taken by the AO in a very slip shod manner. Therefore, the issues under consideration need fresh adjudication by the Revenue authorities. Since the Assessing Officer has to examine the additional evidences in order to verify the sundry creditors and to examine veracity of depreciation claimed, it will be expedient in the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
