M/S. RIDHI SIDHI SHARES (P) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company. It filed its return of income of for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 19.02.2014 declared income of Rs. Nil. The case was Page | 1 selected for scrutiny. The ld AO found during the assessment proceedings assessee has introduced fresh share application money to the tune of Rs. 4.5 crores. Therefore, the ld AO made the addition of Rs. 4.5 crores by order dated 23.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A). He deleted the addition of Rs. 2.75 crores as same was not received during the year. The same is not disputed before us. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.1.75 crores on account of same received from M/s. Sky Lux Cityscapes Pvt. Ltd. During the appellate proceedings the assessee filed the confirmation letter, copy of ledger account, bank statements, copy application for allotment of shares, copy of balance sheet and details of mode of receipt of share application money. The assessee could not file copy of income tax returns of the share applicants and an affidavit of the Director and hence, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The ld CIT(A) produced the chart in para 4.4(vi) tabulated the detailed requirement by the ld AO and furnished by the assessee. The appellate order passed on 25.01.2016.

The assessee aggrieved with the order of the ld CIT(A) furnished the additional evidence by invoking the provision of Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. The assessee submitted the affidavit of the Director of the Sky Lux Cityscapes Pvt. Ltd and also the return of income filed by that company for Assessment Year 2012-13. The application for additional evidence states that for these two informations not furnished , the additions were made. Now those information is available with the assessee and therefore, these information may be admitted and the issue may be decided on the merits.

The ld DR vehemently objected to the above submission stating that despite repeated opportunities given by the ld AO as well as the ld CIT(A) the assessee did not file these information and therefore, now this may not be admitted.

We find that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee which are the only requirement of the ld CIT(A) andld AO, as those were not produced the addition was made in the hands of the assessee. Rejection of the additional evidence in absence of which the confirmation of addition is made by the appellate authority and if such additional evidences are produced later on, generally they should be admitted if there is bona fide reason for non- production of the details earlier. We find that there is no malafide intention of the assessee is shown, hence, we admit the additional evidence. We find that the assessee has taken a share application money of Rs. 1.75 crores from one Sky Lux Cityscapes Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has submitted the confirmation letter dated 24.03.2015 as well as bank statement of the assessee company as well as the bank statement of share applicant . The audited accounts of the share applicants were also produced. As the assessee did not produce the copy of the income tax return and affidavit of the director of the share applicant, the addition was made. Page | 2