TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not point out that before the Assessing Authority, the assessee had offered explanation regarding cash deposits. No reason to interfere into the decision of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment. Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Unexplained cash receipts - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire cash deposits. Hence, the subject matter of the assessment was the cash deposit. In the remand report before the Ld. CIT(A), AO accepted the explanation of the source of the cash deposit to the extent of the gift received from his father of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2017, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the ld. CIT(A), grossly erred in facts and on law, in arbitrarily upholding the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147/148 of the Act by the ld. ITO. As such the consequential order is not sustainable in law. 2. That the ld. CIT(A), was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,10,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 27,36,810/- as made by the ld. ITO, by drawing following incorrect inferences in a most mechanical manner and without proper application of mind to facts and evidence brought on record: i) That the assessee could not expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who after considering the submission partly allowed the appeal thereby the Ld. CIT(A) reduced the addition to the extent of Rs. 7,14,766/- and remaining addition of Rs. 20,10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was sustained. 5. Aggrieved, against this the assessee carried the matter in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. It is seen that the present appeal is barred by limitation further the Tribunal vide its order dated 21st December, 2021 had condoned the delay of 339 days, thereafter the hearing was adjourned. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal is against the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case. 8. I have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. The assessee has not rebutted the finding of the Assessing Officer that he had written various letters to the assessee seeking explanation regarding cash deposits in the impugned assessment order. The Assessing Officer has recorded that verification letters were issued to the assessee on 24.02.2012, 19.12.2014, 07.08.2015 and 09.09.2015 seeking explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit, however despite the letters were duly served on the assessee no explanation was given to him. Ld. counsel for the assessee could not point out that before the Assessing Authority, the assessee had offered explanation regarding cash deposits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material available on record and gone through the evidence of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was no representation on behalf of the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire cash deposits. Hence, the subject matter of the assessment was the cash deposit. In the remand report before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the source of the cash deposit to the extent of the gift received from his father of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 1/3rd share of Rs. 6,44,300/- found to be explained. Thus, out of addition of Rs. 27,34,000/-, this amount of Rs. 11,44,300/- ought to have been reduced. I hold accordingly. Now coming to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
