SH. RAJEEV GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

That within the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on point the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions of Rs.21,24,600/-for Assessment Year 2005-06 to the returned income of Rs.48,16,240/- of Appellant by the learned DCIT under section 68 of the Act for the reason that filing of additional evidence is not permissible within the situations prescribed under the rule 46A and appellant has not been able to convincingly discharge its onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of persons from whom monies were taken. 3. That regarding Rs. 1,24,600/- and Rs.20,00,000/- taken from Asian Paints a/c Rajesh Garg and Surya Gelcaps Limited by the appellant during the financial year under review, copies of acknowledgement receipts, copy of letter dated 16.03.2013 with enclosures/ bank statement and confirmation of unsecured loans

That within the facts and circumstances of the case and the law on point learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant without having afforded an adequate opportunity to Appellant to provide explanation on issues relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in forming the decision, which is against the principal of natural justice and have been deleted in haste, and that for such reasons the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. That the grounds of Appeal submitted hereinabove are without prejudice to one another in such cases and circumstances wherever context so requires. 6. That the Appellant reserves the right to advance such other grounds before or at the hearing, which it may consider fit and appropriate, for which it carve leave to amend, alter or otherwise modify the ground(s) appearing hereinbefore.

Apropos ground no. 2 wherein the assessee was denied by the Ld. CIT(A) for filing additional evidences which were crucial for adjudication of the issue.

During the hearing before us, it was argued by the Ld. AR that the additional evidences ought to have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) as they are inevitable evidences for taking a decision. On the other hand Ld. DR argued that the assessee has not submitted these documents before the Assessing Officer in spite of sufficient opportunities and the fresh evidences can be well examined, investigated by the Assessing Officer only as the evidences were not available before the Assessing Officer hitherto. Hence, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the AO with directions to the assessee to submit all the relevant documents, in comply with all the notices, directions and processes issued by the Assessing Officer.

As a result appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.