M/S KASAT BUILDERS AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,AKOLA vs. A.C.I.T, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

I.'T A.Nc.503 & 533/N46/2016 Assessinerr year:2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH; NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI P. K BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER LLANoSOSINAGI2016 Assessment_yezr;2013-14 Ms Kasat Builder & Construction Vs ACIT. Private Limited, Padiya Complex, Akola Circle, Station Road, Tower Square_Akole Akpla. (Appellant) (Respondent) ILANo 1533NNAG[06 Bssessment_vear:2Q1314 ACI.T, Akola Circle; Akala, (Appellant) Vs, Ms Kasat Builder & Construction Private Limited, Padiya Complex , Station Rqad, Tower Square; Akola; (Respondent) Assessee by Revenue by Date of hearing Date OF pronouncement Shri R, V. Loya Shri Geetesh Kumar, D.R 22511/2017 2z/11/2017 QRDER PEREK__BANSALVE These cross appeals have been filed against the Order of CIT(A) dated 01/07/2016. The only issue involved in the appeal filed by the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Smt: Padmavati Kasat who considered only current year income while calcuiating the sources of income ad creditworthiness, The Revenue in its appeal has taken the following effective grounds of appeal: I On the facts and circumstances Of the case; the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition ujs.68 of IT Act %f Rs.2,15,70,6801- made by the Assessing Officer being unexplained cash credits 2 The Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in Iaw in admitting additional evidence without giving an opportunity to the Assessing 3 1..No.5(5 & 5.3/NAG/20[6 Ass0ssmunt Year:2013-[4 S Officer in violation of provision of Rule 46A of the IT Rules: 3. The order of Ld, CIT(Appeals} i5 perverse on facts as the said documentary evidences relied upon and stated to have been filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer were in Fact never filed before the Assessing Officer: 2 Since the Revenue has taken the ground regarding the admission of additional evidence without giving opportunity to the Assessing Officer by the CIT(A) therefore; we decided to dispose of the appeal of the Revenue first; 35 We have heard the rival submissions; carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We noted that in this case the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act &t & total income of Rs,3,45,27,757/- against the returned income of Rs.83,57,077/- The Assessing Officer made addition U/s 68 in respect of the advance received by the assessee amounting to Rs.2,61,70,680/- out of total booking advance of Rs.5,17,61,480/- shown by the assessee in its books of account: The assessee is 3 builder and developer. During the year the assessee has constructed a residential complex Shree Gajanan Residency' and received advance for the booking of the flats from 20 purchasers amounting to Rs.5,17,61 480/-. survey Uls 1334 was carried out at the business premises of the assessee during the relevant financial year, In the course of survey, the assessee declared unaccounted income amounting to Rs.80 lakhs on account of on monev received on sale of the flats which was duly returned by the assessee while filing the return of income During the course of hearing, the Assessing Officer noted that most Qf the advances were received in cash: The Assessing Officer issued summons U/s 131 to 9 parties and recorded their statement and ultimately 0 Hc 1. /. 1.5o5 & 533/NAG/2u)16 Assessment yca;;2()[3-[+ found that these persons were unable to explain the sources of advances given by them to the assessee against the purchase of plots: The Assessing Officer therefore, added the sum of Rs.2,61,70,680}- U/s 68 of the Act; The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A} ad furnished the additional evidence in the shape of brief note on the business activity and nature and source of the income along with capital gain of each of the person in respect of which the Assessing Officer has made the addition; These evidences were not filed before the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) instead of caling for the remand report and admitting these evidences u/s 66A, deleted the addition in respect Qf ah the parties except Smt. Padmavati Kasat against which the assessee has come in appeal before US and against the deletion of addition Revenue has come in appeal. A7ZA$ Zvn 3 Learned D R. vehemently contended that this Is 3 case of violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Learned counsel far the assessee also agreed that additional evidence has been filed before the CIT(A) for the first time ad the CIT(A) has not called for ay remand report from the Assessing Officer , We; therefore, are Of the view that the CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal has violated the provisions of Rule 46A and has not given any opportunity to the Assessing Offficer before accepting the additional evidence. We; therefore; in the interest of justice and fair play to bpth the parties; set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the issue regarding the addition made uJs 68 by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.2,61,70,680/- before the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to redecide this issue afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and appreciating the evidences and the material as may be filed by the assessee during the course of hearing along with the provision of section 68 of the Act: The assessee is 1YVA NASOS & ,33/NAG/20t0 Assessnnt year:2U13-14 also directed to adduce all the evidences on which he may rely before the Assessing Officer during the course of hearing: as well as Revenue is 4 In the result; the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes (Order was pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2017 Sd}. P. K: BANSAL ) Vice President (PAWAN SINGH) Judicial Member Dated:23/11/2017 Singh Copy of_the_order_forwarded to 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent; 3_ Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A)