SMT. RAMVIR SINGH RAGHAV,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5969/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions and fresh evidence, deciding the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in printing and publication business, was assessed under Section 144 due to non-appearance. Additions were made for unexplained cash credits related to loans/advances and purchases. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, refusing to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence and whether the additions on account of unexplained cash credits were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI, AM & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Sharma Advocate
For Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.12.2015Pronounced: 21.01.2016

ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) 24 on 26.9.2012 in relation to the assessment years 2008-09.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.13,64,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of loans and advances taken by the assessee from different parties and addition of Rs.32,19,360/- on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of purchases made by the assessee.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business of printing under the style and name of M/s. Abhinav prints. The assessee also has another proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Vayapar Bharti, which is engaged in the activity of publication of business news papers, magazines and directories .

3.1. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. However the assesee did not appear before the ld.Ao and so the assessment order was passed u/s.144 of the act by making an addition of Rs.3,89,87,044/- The AO added the same u/s 68 of the Act.

3.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.Ao the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld,CIT(A). The assessee filed certain documents in respect of the cash credits. The same was remanded to the ld.AO. In upholding the addition, the ld. CIT(A) refused to admit/entertain additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A in support of his contention. On the basis of the remand report the ld CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs.13,64,500/- on account of unexplained in loans cash credits respect of and advances taken by the assessee from different parties and addition of Rs.32,19,360/- on account of unexplained cash credits in respect of purchases made by the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved against the sustenance of addition to the above extent, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee admittedly made cash credits in respect of loans and advances taken by the assessee from different parties and cash credits in respect of purchases made by the assessee. When the assessee tried to furnish additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A), he refused to admit such additional evidence on the ground that the AO gave enough opportunities to the assessee.

4.2. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the instant case and without commenting upon the merits of the additional evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside pro tanto and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to examine the assessee’s contention in this regard and, then, decide the issue afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to file fresh evidence before the AO in support of his contention in such fresh proceedings.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 21.01.2016.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →