Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT (A)-IX, New Delhi dated 20.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidence without recording the reason for its admission and also without giving an opportunity to AO which is in violation of Rule 46A of IT Rules?
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of Rs. 141697227/- made by the AO on account of bank deposit.
Page 2 of 5 3. That the order of the ld CIT(A) is erroneous and in not tenable of facts and in law. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
3. The revenue has raised the first ground of appeal against violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company filed its return of income on 05.08.2008 declaring Nil income and subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) was served on 24.09.2008 on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings the ld Assessing Officer obtained the bank statement of assessee with Bank of Rajasthan Ltd, Vikaspuri, New Delhi u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. on the basis of this it was noted that there was total deposit of Rs. 139214890/- and withdrawal from that bank account of Rs. 139198838/- It was also noted that the assessee has also obtained fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 90 lakhs on 31.03.2007. As the assessee before the Assessing Officer provided no explanation the total income was assessed at Rs. 148198840/- vide order dated 22.12.2009 u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who passed an order 20.12.2013 holding that out of total deposit of Rs. 148198840/- only Rs. 133440863/- are in the nature of accommodation entries and therefore only commission income @1.5 % is unexplained income of the assessee. Therefore he reduced the addition of Rs. 148198840/- to Rs. 2001613/-. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) revenue has filed this appeal.
5. In ground No. 1 and 2 the ld Sr. DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has on the basis of representation before him has reduced the addition from Rs. 148198840/- to Rs. 2001613/- without giving any opportunity to the ld Assessing Officer of examining about the amount deposited and amount withdrawn by the appellant.
Page 3 of 5 Further, without any basis ld CIT(A) has held that assessee is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entry and then reduced it to Rs. 2001613/- by estimating commission income @1.5%. He further vehemently objected that the ld CIT(A) has not seen who are the beneficiaries of the above accommodation entries and merely believed that the written submission filed by the assessee when the order of the Assessing Officer was passed u/s 144 of the Act. he therefore stated that there is a clear-cut violation Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and error in the order of the ld CIT(A) in reducing the addition without any evidence. He therefore, press that order of the ld CIT(A) may be vacated.
Despite notice none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the matter is decided on merits as per facts available before us on record.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The assessee did not appear or submit any explanation of the various notices issued by the ld Assessing Officer with respect to the explanation for total deposit of Rs. 139214890/- in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd, Vikaspuri, Delhi. The ld CIT(A) admitted the claims of the assessee of credit for FDR of Rs. 90 lakhs as well as return rejected transaction of Rs. 52.50 lakhs and pay order not en- cashed of Rs. 4.99 lakhs. Therefore he reduced the actual credit of Rs. 14.81 crores to Rs. 13.33 crores. He further without any basis believed that assessee is an accommodation entry provider based on the submission made before him. According to Rule 46A no evidence whether oral or documentary other than evidence produced before AO can be admitted by the ld CIT(A) unless it falls in the specified exceptions. We do not find any such application made by the assessee or decision of the ld