9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.8,46,11,456/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in relying on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Kabul Chawla as Section 153A does not restrict the assessment to seized document." 3. In ITA No. 3142/Del/2017, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: 1. That the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in upholding the validity of the order of assessment. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in not admitting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee (on an application made under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules) despite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. " 4. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the grounds raised by the revenue are as under: A Search and seizure action was conducted on the Vatika group of cases on 16.01.2013. The assessee who is individual involved in the business affairs of Vatika group was also covered u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After examining the return of income, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 8,46,11,456/- in respect of loans and advances received during the year. The assessment pertains to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessment in question is not an abated assessment as per the provisions of Section 153A of the Act. The loans & advances have been duly reflected in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT (A) has not passed any speaking order regarding the applicability or otherwise of conditions mentioned under Rule 46A. Hence, the matter is being referred back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) to give a categorical finding regarding admitting or not admitting the additional evidences in accordance with the ratio laid down in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 204 Taxmann 106 and ITO Vs. Pardeepa Rani 73 Taxmann 392. 8. Hence, we set aside the aforesaid impugned appellate order of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order. If the ld. CIT(A) decides to admit Additional Evidences, he should clearly state the specific clause(s) of Rule 46A(1) of I. T. Rules that would apply while recording the reasons under Rule 46A(2) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
