9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1528X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the assessee contention that his Chartered Accountant has wrongly admitted the credits as undisclosed without consent of the assessee ignoring the basic legal principal that the assessee is bound by the act of his legal representative holding valid power of attorney." 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.20,000/- made on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 80-C of IT Act 1961." 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee who is an individual engaged in the business of trading in wedding cards and papers in the name of Sh. Vishal Kapoor Prop. M/s Sanya Cards e-filed its return declaring a total inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO also made an addition of Rs.22,920/- as bank interest from the said undisclosed bank account. 2.2. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the explanation offered was re-iterated. The same is extracted from the impugned order as under:- 4.2. "The assessee is in appeal against the order of the AO and has submitted that the AO is not justified to make the addition of Rs.20,45,250/- out of the total cash deposits with the SBI bank account. It is submitted that the deposit of Rs.20,45,250/- has been made on various dates and the deposits and withdrawals are in the range of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and accordingly, the AO should have taken the peak credit of the cash deposits of Rs.2,07,715/- on 15/08/2009. It is also submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he "Statement of Facts" filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) shows that the submissions advanced before the AO were re-iterated namely that the assessee had been providing short-term advances to various third parties and the amount being returned back by the parties was again being given to others. In these circumstances it was requested that the peak credit could be added which was supported by the following decisions : * ITO vs Madan Lal Mittal (2006) 8 SOT 880 (Delhi) * Arun Kala Vs. ACIT (2005) 98 TTJ 1046 * Asstt CIT vs Tritan Happy Home Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 94 TTJ 628. 4.1. The pleadings set out in the "Statement of Facts" further elaborates in support of the claim that the same amount cannot be taxed multiple times. Regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to Rs.31,470/-, only. In view of the assessee's failure to produce documentary evidence in respect of the balance amount of Rs.21,890/- (53360-31470), being excess deduction claimed, is disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration." 5.1. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee apparently produced the remaining evidence before the CIT(A). Consequently the CIT(A) issued a direction to allow a further deduction of Rs.20,000/-. 6. Aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. Sr. DR inviting attention to the impugned order assailed the same stating that firstly there was a fresh evidence before the CIT(A); secondly the same has not been confronted to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
