9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the addition of Rs.11,37,270/- on account of unexplained sub-brokerage. 3. The ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.19,100/- on account of telephone expenses." 3. The facts in brief, as recorded in para 2 of the order of the CIT(A) are reproduced hereinbelow: "2. In the assessment order, the AO has stated that the original assessment was passed under section 143(3) Assessing the total income at Rs.68,79,110/-. Against this order, the assessee went in appeal and the CIT (A) deleted part of the additions. Both the department and the assessee went in appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The Hon. Tribunal observed that the block assessment in the case of "GR" stands set aside back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s already filed a letter dated 23/03/1998 admitting that the transaction of Rs. 28.45 Lacs recorded in the name of the assessee was his own unaccounted income of that period. The assessee has also filed a copy of the affidavit of Shri Girish Ruparel dated 04/01/2006 and another affidavit dated 23/12/2009 filed on 24/12/2009, wherein he has reiterated the same." 4. The first ground is against the deletion of addition of Rs.28,45,000/- on account of unexplained deposit with Shri Girish Ruparel. The learned DR submitted that the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in deleting the addition. He submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) is cryptic on this issue. He has not passed a speaking order. He submitted that Shri Girish Ruparel in his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs in the hands of Shri Girish Ruparel. If so, the deletion as made by the learned CIT(A) stands confirmed, otherwise, the learned CIT(A) will decide this issue afresh, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. We direct accordingly. 6. The ground no.2 is regarding addition of Rs.11,37,270/- on account of unexplained sub-brokerage. The learned DR submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. He submitted that the assessee has failed to produce conclusive evidence in support of his claim of brokerage. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that all the details were given before the AO as well as the CIT(A). He supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
