PURUSHOTTAM L. BHARADWAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 20.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

Trading Co., is in fact the same amount and the double addition is made by the AO on his orders dated 28-12-2010, once in the addition of Rs.8,20,000/- made by the Revenue which was deleted by the CIT(Al vide orders dated 25.06.2012 and again while making addition of Rs.I0,40,000/- by the Revenue which was sustained by the CIT(Al. The assessee has not submitted such explanation before the authorities below and has made this explanation for the first time before us. In our considered view , the evidences placed before us by the assessee and the contentions of the assessee that Rs. 5 lacs received from Kishore Trading Company is the same amount as included in the amount of addition of Rs. 8,20,000/- and also in the addition of Rs.I0,40,000 / - by the Revenue needs verification of facts by the authorities below, hence, we set aside the matter back to the file of A.O. for verification that the additions of Rs.5,00,000/- being loan received from Kishore Trading Company is the only loan received by the assessee on 27-01-2000 during the previous year from said Kishore Trading Company which was included in the additions of Rs.8,20,0001 - made by the Revenue for which appropriate relief was granted by the CIT(A} and there is no other loan of Rs.5,00,000/- received during the previous year by the assessee from MI s Kishore Trading Company which is added in the addition of income of Rs.10,40,0001- made by the Revenue and to satisfy the mandate of section 68 of the Act. Needless to say that the AO shall grant proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law in compliance of principles of natural justice. We order accordingly. Similarly, with respect to the addition of Rs. 40,000/-, the assessee contended that this amount is included in the figure of Rs. 10,40,000/- of the addition made by the A.O. and this amount of Rs. 40,000/- represent the nursery income which is included in the agricultural income of Rs.1,32,9001- duly declared and disclosed by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has not submitted any such explanation before the AO and the CIT(Al and this explanation is submitted by the assessee before us for the first time. Thus, this fact also needs verification by the A.O. and hence this issue is also set aside to the file of A.O. for verification to satisfy the mandate of section 68 of the Act. Needless to say that the AO shall grant proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law in compliance of principles of natural justice.We order accordingly. The third addition is with respect to the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- which was included in the figure of addition of amount of Rs.8,20,000/-. The assessee contended that this amount of Rs.3,20,000/- is payable to Industrial Corporate Services towards construction of industrial shed for which necessary invoices has been submitted along with letter of confirmation. We have observed that the letter of confirmation is not signed by the Industrial Corporate Services and also no PAN details of the said concern Industrial Corporate Services were submitted by the assessee, even before us. The said letter of confirmation has not been emanating from the Industrial Corporate Services rather is an extract of accounts of the assessee's books of accounts. The payment of Rs.80,OOOj- made during the previous year in the said confirmation are all paid in cash as per documents produced before us. In our considered view, these evidences again required verification by the A.O., hence this issue also need to be set aside to the file of A.O. for necessary verification to satisfy the mandate of section 68 of the Act. Needless to say that the AO shall grant proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law in compliance of principles of natural justice. We order accordingly.