TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 1399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) violated Rule 46A(1) by accepting additional evidence in spite of the fact that the assessee did not produce details/documents before AO without any reasonable cause and despite being given sufficient opportunities? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in accepting additional evidence is not correct as per judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of M/s Manish Build Well (P) Ltd. (204 taxmann.com 106 (Delhi)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee has established the source and genuineness of the cash deposits amounting to Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k statement during the course of assessment proceedings. The explanation offered by the assessee for cash deposits was not accepted by the AO. During remand proceedings, the assessee has not submitted any further evidences in support of his claim. No valid explanation was offered by the assessee with respect to cash withdrawals/cash expenditures. The learned DR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Kavita Chandra vs. CIT by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA No. 421 of 2016 (O & M) decided on 07/03/2017. In respect of ground 3 of appeal, the learned DR submits that the CIT (A) has deleted the addition in respect of investment in property amounting to the tune of Rs. 2.88 crores. The alleged amount was stated to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Ward-20 (1) (4). The learned AR submits that on the same day, the AO passed the assessment order. Thus, the AO failed to consider the documents filed by the assessee in "tapal" on the date of passing assessment order. It is not a case where the assessee did not file the documents at all during assessment proceedings. The learned AR in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Sureteck Hospital & Research Centre Limited, 293 ITR 53 (Bom). In respect of ground no. 3 of appeal, the learned AR submits that the assessee is a non-resident. The AO has wrongly mentioned the status of assessee in assessment order as resident. The investments are made from funds available in NRE account of the assessee. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e payment for purchase of property from the funds available in his NRE account. This contention is clear from the submission of copy of Statement highlighting payments made and Receipts issued by the Builder which also confirms the payments made by the assessee. The Investment is made through NRE account and stated that NRE account belongs to an NRI only through which his/her foreign earnings are transferred to India as per the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Act. Income received or deemed to be received in India and Income accrue or arise or deemed to be accrue or arise in India is taxable in the hands of NRI. However, the income earned by NRI outside India is out of the scope of taxation in India. Since the investment is made by NR\....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso clear from the appellate order that such a concession was, in fact, made before the appellate authority and an order deleting the said amount from the assessment of the assessee was accordingly passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is, therefore, impossible that the department could be treated as being aggrieved by this part of the order so as to be entitled to take an appeal to the Tribunal. An appeal to the Tribunal could only be taken against a part of the order against which the appellant can be said to be feeling aggrieved. What is voluntarily accepted cannot give rise to a grievance which can be taken further in appeal. In the appeal memo, which was filed by the department, the only ground taken was that the deletion ....