- (1.) Delay of 59 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-assessee Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 6.2.2015, Annexure A.3 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 'B', Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No.184/Chd/2012, for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "A. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in rejecting the application for additional evidence under given facts and circumstances of the case in not admitting the additional evidences there being reasonable cause for not filing the same before the authorities below by clearly defying well settled law that where the documents have bearing on the case, the same need to be taken into consideration by the competent authorities as was held in the case of Tek Ram (dead) through Lrs vs. CIT 93 DTR 350 (SC) wherein it was held that "Fresh documents placed before it for the first time which are of some relevance are required to be looked into by the High Court before it comes to any conclusion" B. Whether the impugned order passed by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, confirming the addition of Rs. 30,40,620/- after rejecting application for additional evidence, and ex parte before the CIT(A) is devoid of proper appreciation of facts, and the established principles of law that no one should be condemned unheard and thus deserves to be set aside while making addition of all the 27 parties though no enquiry was conducted in respect of balance 23 parties which is perverse in view of the fact that Hon'ble ITAT is the last fact finding body C. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in treating the income under the head Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain on investments in personal capacity as income from business without appreciating the facts, evidences and past record and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 7,27,796/- by clearly defying the principles of consistency D. That the finding of ITAT in confirming the impugned additions without adhering to various contentions, evidences and additional evidences filed is perverse and illegal -
(3.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The appellant-assessee is an individual based at Ludhiana. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09. Notice was issued to the appellant to explain certain points. The Assessing Officer asked the appellant to explain the deposit of amounts in account books from various customers for whom he was doing trading in commodities amounting to Rs. 30,40,620/-. The appellant replied that the same were receipts from his customers for whom he was doing trading of commodities as per past and future practice. The Assessing Officer deputed his Inspector to verify the claim from only four persons as a test check. After examining the matter, the Assessing Officer treated the entire set of receipts from all the 27 persons claimed as unexplained cash credits/unexplained investments under sections 68/69 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 30,40,620/- vide order dated 31.12.2010, Annexure A.1. Further, the Assessing Officer treated Short Term Capital gain of Rs. 6,93,533/- and long term capital gain of Rs. 34,263/- as business income. It was also stated that the assessee was earning his income from trading in equities in his personal capacity as well as trading in commodities on behalf of clients from M/s Neel Kanth Commodities Services. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) [CIT(A)]. Due to non appearance before the CIT(A), the addition was sustained by the CIT(A) vide order dated 5.1.2012, Annexure A.2. In the meantime, the father of the assessee expired on 23.2.2010 and his son was diagnosed with Type I diabetes. Ultimately the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein he prayed for placing on record additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Vide order dated 6.2.2015, the application for additional evidence was rejected and the addition was sustained by the Tribunal. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-assessee.;