I.T.O., Ward- 1(3), Aligarh V. Sri Jai Shankar Sharma, Aligarh

ITA 65/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94124 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BELU SINHA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SH RI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRES ID ENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 65 / AG RA / 201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 7 - 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER , VS. SHRI JAI SHANKAR SHARMA, WARD 1(3), A L IGARH. S/O. SHRI HARI SHANKAR SHARMA, PROP. M/S. NAVRAS PRODUCTIONS , 19/436, PREMIER NAGAR, ALIGARH. (PAN A KYPS 4633 N) . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SMT. BELU SINHA, SR. D.R. RE SPONDEN T BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 .07. 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.08. 2015 ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: T HIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - I I, GHAZIABA D DATED 2 1.11. 2011 FOR THE A.Y. 200 7 - 08 , RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 IN RESPECT OF UN EXPLAINED CREDITS. 2. THAT THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.17 LACS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO THE THROUGH INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT WHILE PREPARING THE REMAND REPORT HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN DUE WEIGHTAGE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 2 3. THAT THE DEFENCE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WAS NOTHING BUT THE COOKED UP THE STORY. IF THE ASSESSEE HAD TRULY ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN AND HAD RECEIVED THE CASH AMOUNT OF RS.17 LACS FROM HIM TOWARDS THE PROPOSED SALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT 19/436, PREMEIR NAGAR, ALIGARH, WHY THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN AND WHY HIS NAME WAS HOT INCORPORATED IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/LIABILITIES. 4. THAT THE ACCOUNTANT WHO ALLEGEDLY DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN BY A S MANY AS SEVEN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OF DIFFERENT DATES RATHER THAN DEBITING THE SAME TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES/CREDITORS WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING TH E COURSE OF ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED U/S 250(4) OF THE ACT. 5. THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE INVOKING OF SECTION 68 BY THE A.O. WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 17 LACS WAS NOT WARRANTED BEING THE CREDIT BALANCES OWING TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES HAD ALREADY BEEN SQUIRED OFF BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES CAN NOT BE AGREED UPON. SUCH AN OBSERVATION IS NOT FOUND TO BE IN CONFORMITY OF LAW BECAUSE THE CREDIT BALANCES HAD NOT BEEN REDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENTS MADE THRO UGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, INVOKING OF SECTION 68 BY THE A.O. WAS IN LINE WITH LAW. ON VERIFICATION U/S 133(6) FROM THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS, THE BALANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE. 6. THAT WHY THE MISTAKE OF THE ACCOUNTANT FOR WRO NGLY DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN WAS NOT DETECTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHILE AUDITING THE CASE WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 44AB AND WHY THE NAME OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DID NOT FIGURE IN THE SCHEDULED OF SUNDRY CREDITORS FI LED WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ACCOMPANIED WITH THE RETURN. 7. THAT THE THEORY OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, THE SHOW CALLED MISTAKE OF ACCOUNTANT & AMENDMENT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF RELEVANT YEAR AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS ARE NOTING BUT THE POST ASSESSMENT EXERCISE JUST TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AFTER THROUGH EXPLANATION AND THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FACTS WAS CALLED FOR. ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 3 8. THAT THE FOUL PLAY WITH THE ACCOUNT ELICITED WHILE EXAMINING THE AMENDED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO CONFR ONTING THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DURING THE ENQUIRY U/S 250(4) HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THAT THE FALSIFICATION OF THE FACTS AND JUGGLERY OF ACCOUNTS HAS REACHED IT HEIGHT IN THIS CASE. DU RING THE COURSE OF ENQUIRIES U/S 250(4) BY THE A.O. POST TO THE ASSESSMENT, AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD 2007 - 08, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN WAS FOUND TO BE CREATED WITH AN AMOUNT OF RS.17 LACS AS ON 01.08.2007 AND THE ITR OF A.Y. 2007 - 08 UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN FILED ON 08.10.2007 TOGETHER WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND ITS SCHEDULES, WHICH MEANT THAT BY 01.08.2007, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FOUND THE MISTAKE REGARDING SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, HE OUGH T TO HAVE INCLUDED HIS NAME IN THE SCHEDULE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/LIABILITIES BEFORE FILING THE ITR. THAT THESE FACTS WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL HAVE OVERLOOKED THESE FACTS. 10. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS EXPRESSED APPREHENSION ABOUT THE POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS/269T BY NOT DISCLOSING THE FACT OF CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.17 LACS IN THE NAME OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. THE FACT THAT IT THE ASSESS CAN DO SHOW FOR SAVING HIMSELF FROM THE MISCHIEF OF SECTION 269SS/269T, WHY CAN NOT HE DO SO FOR SAVING THE TAX LIABILITY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FROM THIS ANGLE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 11. THAT THE POWERS CONFER RED ON THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN EXERCISED IN CONFORMITY OF THE INTENT OF LAW. 12. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DELETING ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/ - MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER ANY OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, 1962. ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 4 13. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, ALTER, ADD OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIM E OF HEARING OF CASE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT OF BRASS HARDWARE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. NAVRAS PRODUCTIONS . THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08 WAS FILED ON 8 TH OCTOBER , 2007 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.1,22,380/ - . AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/ - UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTE R) HOLDING THE SUND RY CREDITORS AS NOT PAYABLE A ND MADE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,27,553/ - ON THE GROUND OF EXCESS WASTAGE CLAIMED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER , APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A ) , GHAZIABAD WHO VI D E ORDER DATED 21.11.2011 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE DISPOSING OF APPEAL, THE LD. CIT ( A ) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.17,00,000/ - AND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.1,27,553 / - ON ACCOUNT OF WASTAGE , THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.47,832/ - . IN RESPECT OF RESTRICTING ADDIT ION TO RS.47,832/ - THE D EPARTMENT IS NOT IN APPEAL. ONLY IN RESPECT OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.17 ,00,000/ - LACS THE D EPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEA R D THE RI V AL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. L D . CIT ( A ) HAD PASSED A VERY REASONED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 5 RECORD . LD . C IT ( A ) DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE PARA GRAPH NOS. 7.1 TO 7.1 .11 WHICH READ AS UNDER : - 7.1 GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 I FIND THAT IN A STRANGE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS T HE LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS FIVE PARTIES, AS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION WERE, ON VERIFICATION, FOUND TO BE NON EXISTING TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY PAID BACK THOSE LIABILITIES BY A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE YEAR ITSELF - IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE REPLIES FROM PARTIES WERE RECEIVED U/S 133(6); THE A.O. FOUND THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNTS, AS BEING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET, HAD ACTUALLY BEEN PAID BACK AND THAT IS WHY THE SAID FIVE PARTIES WERE NOT SHOWING ANY DEBIT BALANCE IN THEIR OWN BOOKS. 7.1.2 STRANGELY, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF THESE BALANCES AGGREGATING TO RS. 17 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 1 FIND THIS STRANGE BECAUSE A.O. MADE THIS ADDITION INSPITE OF MENTIONING CLEARLY THAT THIS BALANCE HAS BEEN SQUARED OFF BY PROPER ACCOUNT - PAYEE CHEQUE PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. A.O.'S FINDING ITSELF IMPLIES THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF ANY EX CESS CREDIT RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS OR THEIR BEING ANY PORTION OF CREDIT, REMAINING UN - EXPLAINED. 7.1.3 IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE A.O. DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION AS TO WHY THESE BALANCE WERE APPEARING IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AND BALANCE SHEET AND AS TO HOW THE BALANCE SHEET WAS STILL GETTING TALLIED. THE A.O. HAS SIMPLY MADE ADDITION, AFTER, FINDING OUT THE DISCREPANCIES AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 7.1.4 IN APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT ON FURTHER VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT IT WAS ALL BECAUSE OF MISTAKE OF THE ACCOUNTANT, WHO HAD ACCOUNTED FOR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO FIVE PARTIES, WRONGLY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN , AS A RESULT OF WHICH THE ACCOUNTS OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, WHICH SHOULD HAVE SHOWN A BALANCE OF RS.17 LACS, WAS SQUARED OFF, WHILE THE B ALANCE REMAINED OUTSTANDING IN RESPECT OF THE FIVE PARTIES. IN THIS WAY, THESE PAYMENTS WERE COMPENSATORY ERRORS. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A REVISED BALANCE SHEET CORRECTING THE LIST OF CREDITORS. ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 6 7.1.5. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. MADE VERIFICATION REGARDING THIS CONTENTION AND HAS ALSO RECORDED STATEMENTS ON OATH OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI JAI SHANKAR SHARMA AS WELL AS OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS CONFIRMED BY SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED RS.17 LACS BY WAY OF CASH ADVANCE FOR PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT AT 19/436, PREMIER NAGAR, ALIGARH. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT, SALE WAS NEVER AFFECTED AND THE ADVANCE OF RS. 17 LAC WAS PAID BACK TO SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN IN F.Y 200 8 - 09 IN 5 TO 6 INSTALMENTS. 7.1.6. THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, BY WAY OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, IS A COOKED UP STORY. THE A.O. HAS QUESTIONED THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN. THE A.O. HAS ALSO, QUESTIONED AS TO HOW THE DISCREPANCIES WERE DETECTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER SUCH A SONG TIME. THE A.O. HAS CONCLUDED IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO COGENT EXPLANATION TO REBUT THE EXCESS CREDIT OF RS.17 LACS. 7.1.7. THE APPELLANT , ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUES THAT THE MISTAKE WAS DETECTED ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED AND THE ENTIRE ACCOUNTS WERE RE - VERIFIED WITH THE HELP OF THE PRESENT COUNSEL SHRI ANIL PANDEY. FURTHER THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT IT WAS CLEARLY A MISTA KE BY THE ACCOUNTANT BECAUSE ASSESSEE IS NOT GAINING ANYTHING BY SHOWING WRONG ENTRIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ADVANCE OF RS.17 LACS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CREDITOR, WHO IS NOT ONLY A CREDIT WORTHY ASSESSEE IN HIS OWN RIGHT, FILING REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME BUT HAS ALSO FURNISHED HIS OWN BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN SUCH ADVANCE OF RS. 17 LAC HAS BEEN DULY SHOWN AS TO BE GIVEN TO SHRI JAI SHANKAR SHARMA AND THESE BALANCE SHEETS AND ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED ON 29 - 06 - 2008 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN IN SUPPORT OF HI S CONTENTION. 7.1.8. CAREFULLY WEIGHING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I HOLD THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE IS HEAVILY TILTED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS AS FAR AS ADDITION U/S 68 IS CONCERNED. THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FIVE PARTIES WERE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE RELEVANT PARTIES; AND THIS FACT IS ELABORATELY MENTIONED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, AS ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 7 MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS NOT A CASE OF EXCESS CREDIT RECEIVED. ACTUALLY, VIZ A VIZ THE FIVE PARTIES THEIR DOES NOT REMAIN ANY CREDIT BALANCE. SO THE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO THE FACT /CONTENTION THAT SALE ADVANCE, IN CASH, TO THE TUNE OF RS.17 LACS WAS RECEIVED FROM SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN FOR PROPOSED SALE OF RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PROPERTY OF THE APPELLANT. THE EVIDENCES IN FAVOUR OF THIS CONTENTION ARE SHRI MOHAN SINGH GOSAIN HAS STATED SO ON OATH AND ALSO THAT THERE IS BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND ALSO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHEREIN THI S AMOUNT OF RS.17 LAC HAS BEEN INCORPORATED WITH THE NOMENCLATURE OF 'LOANS & ADVANCES' THE ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IS NOT AUDITED AND IS SELF SIGNED, BUT THE ACCOUNTS FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB AS ON 26 - 09 - 2008 AND HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE INC OME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 29 - 09 - 2008 . FURTHER SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN IS IN THE BUSINESS OF LABOUR SUPPLY, PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES AND ALSO CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS, SO THERE BEING A UNREGISTERED AGREEMENT ALSO ON RECORD FOR SUCH PROPOSED SALE OF PROP ERTY BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, IS NOTHING UNUSUAL. OF COURSE, THE SALE WAS NOT AFFECTED. SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, AS MENTIONED EARLIER IS ASSESSED TO TAX DECLARING TOTAL INCOME IN THE RANGE OF 2 LAC AND ABOVE, AND HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,72,700/ - FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09, WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 16 - 12 - 2010 OF ITO WARD - 33(1), NEW DELHI . RETURN OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DOES NOT PORTRAY A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF CREDIT WORTHINESS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME DOES NOT SHOW A PERSON OF NO MEANS EITHER. HE IS SHOWING SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ALSO CASH AND BANK BALANCES SO AS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE AN ADVANCE OF RS.17 LACS. 7.1.9. THUS ON PREPONDERANCE AND EVIDENCE, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABL E TO GIVE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND HENCE I DON'T FIND THAT ADDITION OF RS. 1 7 LAC U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, IS WARRANTED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 7.1.10. HOWEVER, A.O. IS FREE TO TAKE OR CAUSE TO BE TAKEN, REMEDIAL ACTION IN THE HANDS OF THE CRED ITOR SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN, IN CASE THE RESPECTIVE A.O. THINKS IT PROPER AND FINDS THAT THE SOURCE OF THE FUND IS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN. 7.1.11. ALSO, THIS APPEARS TO BE A CASE OF VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 269SS/269T. BY SOME HOW NOT DISCLOSING THE FACT OF CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.17 LAC IN THE NAME OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS LIKELY TO HAVE AVOIDED ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 8 PROCEEDINGS U/S 269SS/269T OF THE ACT. AS THE RESPECTIVE FACTS HA VE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT NOW DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS; THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANY PROCEEDINGS U/S 269SS /269T ARE FIT TO BE TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND SHRI MOHAN SINGH GUSAIN AS FOR NOW, THE ADDITION OF R S.17 LAC U/S 68 OF THE ACT, IS DELETED. 4. THE FINDING OF THE LD . CIT(A) ARE BASED PURELY ON UNDISPUTED FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). T HE ARGUMENT OF SR. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF R ULE 46A OF THE I . T . RULES , 1962 IS NOT CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A . O . AND THE REMAND REPORT WAS DISCUSSED IN HIS ORD ER VIDE PARA GRAPH NO. 6 . W HEN THE REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE A . O ., IT TANTAMOUNT TO AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE A . O . IN TERMS OF R ULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 AND , THEREFORE , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF R UL E 46A BY THE LD. CIT (A) AS ALLEGED BY THE R EVENUE. HENCE , THE GROUND S OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.08.2015 ). SD/ - SD / - ( G.C. GUPTA ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) VICE PRESIDENT ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 12 TH AUGUST, 201 5 PBN/* ITA NO.65/AGRA/2012 A.Y. 2007 - 08 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA