9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary. 2. The Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a partnership firm, filed its return of income 22-09-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 28,68,540/-. Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on following issues specifically - A). Income from Real Estate Business and B). Unsecured Loans. During the assessment proceedings various notices were issued to the assessee u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act vide dated: 22.09.2019, 18.12.2020, 08.01.2021, 19.01.2021 and 04.02.2021, but no compliance was made by the assessee against these notices. Other notices were issued to assessee on 24.02.2021, 09.03.2021 and 27.03.2021 against these notices a partial compliance was done by assessee on 01.03.2021, 15.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 respectively. 3. Case of the assessee was assessed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 2,90,30,000/- on account of unsecured loans and Rs. 12,63,66,352/- on account of advance received from the customers u/s. 68 of the Act. Assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to make out the case how it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue or what anomaly is there in the order of Ld. CIT (A). On this issue following judicial pronouncements alongwith the bare language of relevant Rule and section of the Act can be relied upon for better understanding of the issue under consideration: Rule - 46A, Income-tax Rules, 1962 [Production of additional evidence before the [ [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [and Commissioner (Appeals)]. 46A. (1) The appellant shall not be entitled to produce before the [Joint Commissioner] (Appeals)] [or, as the case may be, the Commissioner (Appeals)], any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the [Assessing Officer], except in the following circumstances, namely: - (a) where the [Assessing Officer] has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted; or (b) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which he was called upon to produce by the [Assessing Officer]; or (c) where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the [Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) In any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit. (1A) in disposing of an appeal, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; (b) in an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, he may confirm or cancel such order or vary it so as either to enhance or to reduce the penalty; (c) In any other case, he may pass such orders in the appeal as he thinks fit.] (2) The [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the [Commissioner (Appeals)][, as the case may be,] shall not enhance an assessment or a penalty or reduce the amount of refund unless the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement or reduction. Explanation.-In disposing of an appeal, the[Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the][Commissioner (Appeals)], may consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order appealed against was passed, notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lity to pay purchase tax under the provisions of the Bengal Raw Jute Taxation Act, 1941, as the assessee entertained a belief that it was not liable to pay purchase tax under the aforesaid Act. But later on, it was assessed to purchase tax and the assessee disputed the demand and filed an appeal before the appellate authority and obtained stay order. The assessee thereafter claimed deduction for the said amount towards his liability to pay purchase tax as deduction for the assessment year under consideration. The assessee had not actually paid the purchase tax as he had obtained stay from the appellate authority. Nonetheless its liability to pay tax existed and it was entitled to the said deduction. Thus, the High Court and the Tribunal both committed error in refusing to state the case or making a reference. The High Court should be directed to call for the statement of case from the Tribunal and thereupon decide the matter afresh, but this procedure would be time consuming. Since, the view taken by the Tribunal was not sustainable in law, it was to be set aside and the matter was to be remitted to the Tribunal to consider the merit of the deduction permitted by the AAC. Decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that under rule 46A (1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, no fresh evidence could be permitted for the first time in appeal. With reference to the payment made to the SICOM, the CIT (A) held that the amount mentioned in the letter of SICOM and the amount claimed by the assessee did not tally. Accordingly, the CIT (A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 5. On further appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal held that in the light of rule 46A (4), the CIT(A) ought to have permitted the assessee to produce confirmation letters given by 12 unsecured creditors as the same were necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the additions of Rs. 6, 06,725 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 6. the Tribunal further held that although the assessee had claimed that it had taken loan from Shri M.M. Dandekar, in fact it is established that the assessee was liable to pay to Mr. Dandekar Rs. 1, 16,000 for the project consultancy work done by him. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1, 16,000 made on account of Mr. Dandekar. Similarly, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,40,000 as it was est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
