TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment Year. The aforesaid finding being pure finding of fact does not raise any substantial question of law. Therefore, no interference of this Court, is warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Unaccounted advances - Tribunal remanding back the issue of verification of the advances to the file of the CIT(A) when it had noted that the CIT(A) had passed a perverse order by allowing a claim where the assessee was not in a position to produce evidence - Held that:- The impugned order after recording a finding that the conclusion was arrived at by the CIT(A) was without proper consideration, restored the issue to him for fresh consideration. We do not see any prejudice being caused to the Respondent Assessee if the matter has been restor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO or before the CIT(A).? 3. So far as Question (a) is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that although the sales were of ₹ 92.07 lakhs, the sales reported were to the tune of ₹ 1.20 Crores. The Assessing Office called upon the Respondent Assessee to explain the difference. The Respondent Assessee pointed out that due to its Accountant's mistake, a bill of ₹ 36.25 lakhs dated 3rd April, 2007 issued to BARC was wrongly booked in the books of account for the subject Assessment Year rather than in the following Assessment Year namely A. Y. 2008-09. The Assessing Officer did not accept the same and added the entire amount as suppressed sales. 4. On appeal, the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of this Court, is warranted. Accordingly, Question (a) dismissed. 7. So far as Questions (b) and (c) are concerned, we find that the impugned order records that the Respondent Assessee had not submitted evidence with regard to advance received from third parties. Thus, the Assessing Officer added these advances to the income. However, the CIT(A) without calling for a remand report deleted the addition. The Tribunal by the impugned order held that the CIT(A) was not justified in setting aside the addition of ₹ 13.10 lakhs, attributable to advance received from third parties. In the circumstances, the impugned order merely set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to him for fresh consideration in accordance with l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
