ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GANGULY BROTHERS (SHIPRA MALL), NEW DELHI

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,41,791/- on account of expenses being 20% of the expenses ignoring the fact that assessee failed to furnish the details and documentary evidences.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,18,960/- addition made in fixed assets being un-vouched and unsupported by the bills and vouchers. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,05,400/- on account of valuation of stock in the absence of stock register and requisite details. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish confirmation and prove credit worthiness of the parties. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,35,972/- on account of sundry creditors and debitors ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish the confirmation and produce books of accounts 3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidences ignoring the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, without granting opportunity to the AO to examine the same. Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO to examine the afresh.

On the other hand, Ld. AR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference on my part, hence the same may be upheld.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) while giving his findings with regard to ground no. 1 to 5 vide para no. 1.13 at Page No. 10 in his impugned order and has observed as under:- “1.13 I have carefully considered the above discussed submissions of the Appellant and I am in agreement with the same as would be borne out from facts on record. The appellant was deprived of reasonable and sufficient opportunity at the assessment stage. However, the said opportunity has been now provided by admission of additional evidence, which has been duly confronted to the AO for rebuttal, and thereafter substantive grounds of appeal are being adjudicated on merits of the case.”