Makarand V. Mahadeokar ORDER
Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Member (A)
1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 20-9-2018 passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld.CIT(A)"] in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and disallowance of Rs. 3,30,000/- out of loading and unloading charges made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") in his assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
Facts of the Case:
2. The assessee filed its return of income on 28-09-2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,13,98,610/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and the AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and share premium received from the following parties during the year under consideration, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A):
2.1. The assessee could not produce necessary details and evidence before the AO to prove genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction after several opportunities and even after issuing show cause notice dated 20-03-2015.
2.2. The assessee placed following documents relating to share applicants as additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) by filing an application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962:
i. Acknowledgment of ITR
ii. Confirmation
iii. Bank statement of share applicant
iv. Bank statement of assessee
v. Audited financial statements of share applicants
vi. Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of share applicants.
2.3. As claimed by the assessee, he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the AO these documents and reasons were beyond control of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the application for admission of additional evidence to the AO. The AO in his remand report stated that since the case is not covered by exceptional circumstances as mentioned in Rule 46A and the assessee was given sufficient opportunity during the course of assessment, the assessee's request to produce the additional evidence be rejected.
2.4. The assessee submitted in his reply to the AO's remand report that -
1. The appellant was not in possession of adequate and necessary evidence during the course of assessment proceedings and hence the requisite evidence was being submitted as additional evidence because the evidence so submitted being related to the root cause of matter of addition.
2. Further the Show Cause Notice to prove genuineness of transaction of addition in share capital was issued on 20.03.2015 and the deadline to produce the evidence was 24.03.2015 and hence this does not seem to be a proper opportunity of being heard offered to the appellant.
3. Further we request your good honour to consider the following judgement as cited by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Sh. Dharampal Tyagi Vs. ITO "CIT(A) should admit the additional evidences under rule 46A which are relevant and goes to the root of the matter" Thus in light of the above judgement we request your good honour to kindly consider the additional evidence.
4. Further CIT(A) has power to admit the fresh evidence despite of failure to produce evidence during asse........