Rajesh Paul Bansal, Solan vs Assessee

Rajesh Paul Bansal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, C/o M/s BRD Medilabs, Baddi at Parwanoo. Indl. Area, Baddi, Distt. Solan. PAN: ACHPB6964B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal, DR

Date of hearing : 10.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 12.02.2015

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Shimla dated 8.4.2013 for assessment year 2005-06.

2. We have heard the learned representatives of both the

parties and perused the material available on record.

3. The learned counsel for assessee stated that ground No.1

is general and ground No.2 is not pressed. These grounds

are, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

4. On ground No.3, the assessee challenged the addition of

Rs.1,06,047/- on account of capital contribution. The 2

Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made addition

to his capital amounting to Rs.1,06,047/-. The assessee was

asked to furnish evidence of the source of addition made to

the capital account. The assessee, however, failed to produce

any evidence or explanation in this regard. Therefore, the

same amount was treated as unexplained income under

section 68 of the Act and addition was accordingly, made.

5. The learned CIT (Appeals) noted that the assessee has

failed to produce any evidence with regard to the addition to

the capital account despite the Assessing Officer gave specific

notice to the assessee in this regard. Therefore, the addition

was confirmed.

6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find

any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. The

impugned order shows that the assessee submitted ledger

account of his proprietary business and bank statement to

explain the availability of the amount for the purpose of

making addition to the capital account and it was claimed

that out of past savings the capital have been further

enhanced. However, the same were not found acceptable to

the learned CIT (Appeals) because the assessee was not having

any evidence to support the capital introduction in the capital

account of the assessee. Even before us, no evidence has

been produced to show as to how the capital has been further

enhanced in the capital account of the assessee. In the

absence of any evidence or explanation, we do not find any

justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities 3

below. Therefore ground No.3 of appeal of the assessee is

accordingly, dismissed.

7. On ground No.4, the assessee challenged the addition of

Rs.3,60,000/- on account of unsecured loan received by the

assessee from Shri D.P.Bansal. On ground No.5, the

assessee has challenged addition of Rs.1,97,500/- on account

of unsecured loan received from Smt.Renu Bansal. The

Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was directed to

furnish evidence to prove the genuineness of these loans.

The assessee was asked to furnish confirmation of these

persons who have advanced the loans to the assessee and also

to produce copies of their bank accounts, if any, from where

the money was withdrawn for the loans. Despite giving

sufficient opportunities, the assessee did not furnish any

evidence before the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness

of the loans in the matter. The addition of Rs.5,57,5000/-

was accordingly, made against the assessee.

8. The assessee moved an application under Rule 46A of the

Income Tax Rules before the learned CIT (Appeals) for

admission of the additional evidences and filed copy of the

ledger account of Shri D.P.Bansal, confirmed bank statement

of availability of the funds with him. Similar additional

evidences were filed in respect of loan taken from Smt.Renu

Bansal. It was claimed that the assessee was prevented by

sufficient cause from producing evidence before the Assessing

Officer. The Assessing Officer, however, objected to the

admission of the additional evidence because no sufficient 4

cause has been explained by the assessee for not filing the

documents before the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT

(Appeals) referred to the letter issued by the Assessing Officer

dated 15.10.2007 seeking confirmation from the assessee of

these loans and copies of the bank account. But the

assessee did not respond to this notice as well. The learned

CIT (Appeals), therefore, noted that since all queries letters

were addressed to the assessee only, therefore, non-

appearance of the learned counsel for assessee is not relevant

and accordingly, rejected the application under Rule 46A of

the Act for admission of the additional evidences. In the

absence of any evidence or material on record, the learned CIT

(Appeals) confirmed both the additions and dismissed the

appeal of the assessee.

9. The learned counsel for assessee reiterated the

submission made before the authorities below and also made

separate prayer for admission of the additional ground that

the learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified in not admitting

the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax

Rules. The certificate of Shri Ashok Jindal & Associates,

Chartered Accountant is filed, in which it is clarified that he

is taking the case with the Assessing Officer and the assessee

has provided the details but due to his accident, he could not

attend the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the

order was passed ex-parte. The learned counsel for assessee

also filed application under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules for

admission of the additional evidences and referred to PB-31 to

34, which are ledger account of Shri D.P.Bansal giving 5

loan to the assessee,, confirmation of Shri D.P.Bansal

confirming giving loan to the assessee and quoting his PAN

number on the confirmation, copy of acknowledgement of

return of income filed by Shri D.P.Bansal for assessment year

2005-06 declaring income of Rs.17,92,200/- with computation

of income. He has also referred to PB-35 to 44, which are

copies of the ledger account of Smt.Renu Bansal and

acknowledgement of filing of her return of income for two

years, copy of confirmation with PAN number confirming

giving of loan to the assessee and copies of the bank

certificate, etc. The learned counsel for assessee, therefore,

submitted that these evidences could not be filed before the

Assessing Officer because of the accident of the learned

counsel for assessee and submitted that the same are relevant

for the purpose of disposal of the appeal and the same may be

admitted as additional evidences for the purpose of disposal

of the appeal.

10. On the other hand, the learned D.R for the Revenue

opposed the request of the learned counsel for assessee and

submitted that despite giving sufficient opportunity, these

evidences could not be filed before the Assessing Officer.

Therefore, the same may not be admitted for hearing and the

appeal of the assessee on this ground may be dismissed.

11. We have considered rival submissions. The assessee has

raised the additional ground for not admitting the additional

evidences by the learned CIT (Appeals) as well as filed

separate application for admission of the additional evidences 6

under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules. The additional evidences

are filed at pages 31 to 44 of the Paper Book as detailed

above, which includes the confirmation from both the

creditors, both the creditors are assessed to tax and have

been filing income tax return. Therefore, these additional

evidences are relevant and necessary for the purpose of

disposal of the appeal. The assessee also explained that

since the learned counsel for assessee met with accident,

therefore, these evidences could not be filed before the

Assessing Officer. Therefore, considering the relevancy of the

additional evidences that same are essential for just disposal

of the appeal, it would be necessary to admit these additional

evidences for the purpose of hearing. We accordingly, admit

all these additional evidences filed in the Paper Book at pages

31 to 44 because the assessee was prevented by sufficient

cause from producing these evidences before the Assessing

Officer and the same are also relevant for the purpose of

disposal of the appeal. The additional evidences are,

therefore, admitted. Since these additional evidences have

not been produced before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the

genuineness of the loans cannot be subjected to verification at

the level of the Assessing Officer. We accordingly, set aside

the orders of the authorities below and restore these issues to

the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to re-decide

both the grounds afresh in the light of the additional

evidences so admitted above by giving reasonable sufficient

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is

directed to furnish all these additional evidences before the 7

Assessing Officer for verification of the genuineness of the

loans in the matter. The assessee is directed to cooperate

with the Assessing Officer and shall not seek any unnecessary

adjournment in the matter for any reason, whatsoever, and in

case the Assessing Officer requires presence of the creditors

for personal examination, the assessee shall have to produce

both of them before the Assessing Officer for examination in

accordance with law. With these observations, both ground

Nos.4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

statistical purposes.

12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of

February, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 12 t h Februray, 2015

*Rati*

Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh