Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1691 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
15-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
14-06-2016
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
29-12-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 S MT. SARIKA CHANDRAKANT JAIN, LEGAL HEIR OF CHANDRAKANT PARASMAL JAIN, AHILYABAI CHOWK, NANDURBAR, DIST. NANDURBAR 425 412. PAN NO. AEVPP9785Q . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 3(4), DHULE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO / REVENUE BY : SHRI MAZHAR AKRAM / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08-10-2015 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND IS PROPRIETOR AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAMDEO TRADING, AHILYABAI CHOWK, NANDURBAR. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,82,266/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY UNDER CASS. NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WERE ISSUED ON 10-09-2012 TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT IN ASS ESSEES ACCOUNT OF RS.12,56,000/-. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH TH E / DATE OF HEARING :14.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:15.06.2016 2 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS SATISFACTORY IN RES PECT OF CASH DEPOSIT. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 24-01-2014 MAKING ADDITION OF RS.12,56,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, ORDER OF THE AG AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE ABOVE NARRATION AND THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES IS G RANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT OR EXPLAIN HIS CASE. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT IN THIS CASE THE APPELLANT WAS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A DVISED BY QUALIFIED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APART FROM HIS FAT HER. FURTHER THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT DISCLOSED TH E INCOME FROM HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. VIMAL UDYOG. IT IS TRITE LA W THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS TO FILE SINGLE CONSOLIDATED RETURN EVEN WHEN HE IS RUNNING MULTIPLE PROPRIETARY BUSINESSES. FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT IT IS APPARENT THAT HE IS ADVISED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT. THE INCOME HOWEVER SMALL IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NEEDE D TO BE CLUBBED WITH HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE. THI S TANTAMOUNTS TO WILFUL SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION WHICH HAS COME TO LIG HT DUE TO DEXTERITY AND SUSTAINED INVESTIGATION OF AO. EVEN WHEN THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COME CLEAN AN D INFORMED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN OR ITS BUSI NESS OPERATION OR INCOME. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED OF LOAN CONFIRMATI ON OF VIMAL UDYOG IT DID NOT REVEAL THAT IT WAS PROPRIETARY CONC ERN OF THE APPELLANT. ON VERIFICATION FROM BANK THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ABLE TO KNOW THAT THE ACCOUNT HOLDER VIMAL UDYOG IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT. ALL THIS FACT SHOWS THAT THIS WAS AN UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT BEING UTILISED FOR UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS TO BE CONSIDERED. 5.1 THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT A MATT ER OF RIGHT. PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER APPEAL IS GOVERNED BY RULE 46A WHICH EMPHASIZES AS UNDER:- '46A (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRO DUCE BEFORE THE (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MA Y BE, THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL O R DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HI M DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER ], EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES NAMELY;- (A) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO AD MIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ; OR 3 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDEN CE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDE R APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO TH E APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL' 5.2 THE POSITION IN LAW REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITI ONAL OF EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO 46A OF I.T. RULE IS VERY CLEAR. NO PE RSON IS ENTITLED TO SEEK ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. IN FACT OPENING PORTION OF THE RULE IS COUCHED IN NEGATIVE TERMINOLO GY AND PLACES EMBARGO ON A PERSON FROM SEEKING ADMISSION OF THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE. THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING FULFILMENT OF STIPULATED CO NDITION. THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VESTED WITH THE DISCRETION WHET HER TO ADMIT OR TO REJECT AN APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND FOR THIS PURPOSE THE ONLY TEST WHICH IS RELEVANT IS WHETHER DISCR ETION HAS BEEN VALIDLY EXERCISED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. APPLYING THE AFORESAID TEST TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRODUCIN G THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE ENTIRE MATTER VERY LIGHTLY BY NOT FURNISHING RELEVANT DETAILS IN SPITE OF BEING GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES BY THE AO. THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT APPELLANT HAS WILFULLY TO TRIED TO C ONCEAL THE BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND DID NOT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO COME CLEAN. AT THE TIME OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO IT IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED THE ENTI RE MATTER IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER AND HAS DELIBERATELY TRIED TO CAMO UFLAGE ITS ACT OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OPERATION. THE BENEFIT UNDER RULE 4 6A IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PERSON WHO IS NEGLIGENT, NON COOPERA TIVE, RECALCITRANT AND WILFULLY TRIES TO SUPPRESS ITS PROFITS AND BUSINESS OPERATIO NS. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THA T NO FURTHER CHANCE OR OPPORTUNITY IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE APPELL ANT TO COVER UP ITS OWN LAPSES. 5.3 IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS BEING PLACED ON ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. CIT, THA T THE PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE EITHER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY OR TRIBUNAL WAS NOT THE MATTER OF RIGHT AND IN CASE DISCRETION WA S EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THERE WAS NO COGENT REASON TO INT ERFERE. 5.4 IN THE INSTANT CASE FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD IT I S SEEN THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GRANTED BOTH AT THE ASSESSMENT STAG E WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED AN Y SUFFICIENT CAUSE BY VIRTUE OF WHICH IT COULD NOT PROD UCE THE EVIDENCES IN THE FRONT OF THE AO AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDING. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO PLACED IN SIMILAR DECISION OF RAJASTH AN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAO RAJA HANUT SINGH AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF FEDERAL FILAMENT LTD. VS. CIT. 5.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR AD MISSION OF THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. 4 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 5.6 THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROFIT IN PROPRIETARY CO NCERN VIMAL UDYOG WAS SMALL SO RETURN WAS NOT FILED DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/3/2012. THE PROFIT HOWEVER SMALL WAS TO BE CLUBBED. WITH THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THIS RETUR N. THE APPELLANT IS ADVISED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND ADVOCATE IN HIS B USINESS OPERATION. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF INADVERTENT ERROR, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF APPEAL AND STANDS REJECTED. 5.7 THE BANK ACCOUNT IN WHICH CASH IS DEPOSITED OF RS. 12,56,000/ - IS NOT CREDITED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ADDITION OF CA SH DEPOSIT IN ABSENCE OF CREDIBLE SOURCE CANNOT BE MADE U/S 68 AS THE AMOUNT IS NOT CREDITED IN BOOKS OF HOWEVER THE SAID ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 69 AS BANK DEPOSITS WHICH IS NOT CREDITED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. 5.8 IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE CIT(A)'S POWER ARE CO-T ERMINUS TO AO. WHAT THE AO HAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY THE CIT(A) CAN RE CTIFY AND MODIFY THE SAME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE 53 ITR 225 HAS HELD INTER-ALIA AS UNDER:- 'THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAS, THEREFORE, PLE NARY POWERS IN DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL. THE SCOPE OF HIS POWER IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER. HE CAN DO WHAT THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CAN DO AND ALSO DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE HAS FAILED TO DO. IF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS THE O PTION TO ASSESS ONE OR OTHER OF THE ENTITIES IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CAN DIRECT HIM TO DO WHAT HE SHOUL D HAVE DONE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE'. 5.9 THE RIGHT SECTION FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION WAS SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN B ANK OF RS.12,96,000/- IS ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. F OR, SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, SECTION 69 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BELOW:- 'WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NO T RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAIN ED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS N O EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE D EEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR.' 5.10 THE ABOVE SECTION INDICATES THAT IN ORDER TO BE AN IN COME, THERE MUST BE FULFILLMENT OF TWO CONDITIONS SINCE THE WORD ' AND' HAS BEEN USED IN THE SECTION. THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE CURRENT Y EAR MUST NOT BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE EXPLANATION NOT OFFERED OR NOT SATISFACTORILY OFFERED. THIS IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHI CH MEANS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO REAL INCOME IT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE HIS INCOME. 5.11 ADVERTING TO THE FACT IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THEN CASH DEPOSIT I N ITS BANK ACCOUNT. THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS FROM UNDISCLOSED SOUR CE OF INCOME. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,96 ,000/- UNDER SECTION 5 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT IS FURNISHED THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,96,000/ - IS UPHELD. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW LEA RNED CIT (A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RE GARDING THE SOURCES OF DEPOSIT OF RS.12,56,000/- WITH HASTI CO-OP BANK LTD . 2. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES & POSITION OF LAW LEARNE D CIT (A)-1, NASHIK ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,96,0 00/- UNDER SECTION 69 WHEN IT WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.68 BY TREATI NG THE BANK BOOK AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND POSITION OF LAW LEAR NED CIT (A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN TREATING CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.12,96,000/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INVESTMENT AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION U/S.69 & DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.1 2,96,000/- U/S.69. 4. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES & POSITION OF LAW LEARNE D CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,96,0 00/-. 5. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES & POSITION OF LAW LEARNE D CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U /S.234B AT RS.84,286/-. 6. IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES & POSITION OF LAW LEARNE D CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN NOT SUBSTITUTING THE LEGAL HEIR OF DEC EASED APPELLANT WHO DIED AFTER FILING THE APPEAL WHEN LEGAL REPRESENTAT IVES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY FILING LETTER DATED 30/4/2015 AND THEREBY PASSING THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IN THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON. 7. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR SU BSTITUTE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 24 -01-2014 AND THE ASSESSEE EXPIRED ON 25-08-2014. THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SITUATION REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES FILED BEFORE HER. HE SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS AS TO WHY HE FAILED TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A O, THE LD. CIT(A) ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL 6 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 EVIDENCES FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUD ICATED THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE AO OR CIT(A) AS THE CASE MAY BE TO DEC IDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING ASIDE OF THE ISSUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEA KING ORDER REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PA PER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING 2 BUSINESS CONCERNS, NAMELY RAMDEO TRADING COMP ANY AND VIMALNATH UDYOG. WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSES SEE HAD DISCLOSED ONLY THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RAMDEO TRADING COMP ANY BUT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PROFIT IN THE CASE OF VIMALNATH UDYOG . SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HASTI COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. THE AO MADE A DDITION OF RS.12,56,000/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT (A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES FILED BEFORE HER. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPIRED AND THE LEGAL HEIRS TRIED TO SU BSTANTIATE THE CASE BY FILING CERTAIN DETAILS WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT IS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE, THERE FORE, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON HUMANITARIAN GROUND SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PA Y ANY TAX IF HE IS NOT OTHERWISE LIABLE. 7 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 8. I FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPIRED AND HE WAS NO MORE WHEN THE ORD ER WAS PASSED BY THELD.CIT(A). CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFOR E HER BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE REJECTED BY H ER BY NOT ADMITTING THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN MY OPINION, UNDER THE PECULIAR FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEP TED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEREAFTER DECIDED THE ISSUE ON M ERIT. IF ACCORDING TO HER, EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,56,000 /- SHE SHOULD HAVE PASSED THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, IN T HE INSTANT CASE, SHE HAS OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAME AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CAS E IS NO MORE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD NOT BE R EJECTED, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. I HOLD AND DIRECT A CCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 15 TH JUNE, 2016. 8 ITA NO.1712/PN/2015 '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - I, NASHIK 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-I, NASHIK $ ''(, (, SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE
