9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.15,72,000/- made on account of unexplained deposits. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer." 2. An assessment order was made u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act, dated 22.12.2009, wherein the AO received an information from CIB Wings, in respect of UTI Bank, stated to be a joint account with the brother of the assessee, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Chaudhary, having deposit to the tune of Rs.15,72,000/-. The AO had mentioned that at that time the assessment of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Chaudhary was pending and a show cause was issued to the assessee as to why the said amount be not taxed on protective basis. The AO has also note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat basis, the impugned protective assessment was quashed in the following manner: "I have considered the submission made by the appellant as well as the assessment order. It is seen that appellant had opened a joint account with his elder brother Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary in UTI Bank. The said account was already reflected in the return of income Kamlesh Chaudhary filed on 29/12/2006 i.e. well before the first notice u/s. 142(1) issued by the A.O. on 13/11/2007 to the assessee. The appellant had specifically intimated to the A.O. that his elder brother Shri Kamlesh Chaudhrary is assessed with ITO, Wd.-1, Mehsana. Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary also filed confirmation to the effect that bank transactions in the said bank account with UTl Bank are alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee as due explanation was given by him to the A.O. about the actual facts of the case which was supported by evidences. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.15,72,000/- made in the assessee's case is deleted. However, the AO is at liberty to act as per law in the case of assessee's brother Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary's case who has owned the account." 4. With this brief background, we have heard both the sides. From the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R. Mr. K.C. Mathews has supported the order of the AO, on the other hand from the side of the appellant, learned AR, Mr. Anil Kshatriya has supported the order of learned CIT(A). Learned AR has informed that on 19th of January, 2010 a notice was issued by ITO Ward-1, Mehsana to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned amount protectively in the hands of the assessee did not survive. We hereby confirm the findings of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 5. As far as the CO of the assessee is concerned, the ground raised is as under: "The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate submission dated 18.08.2010 filed before him during the course of appellate proceedings whereby, in the opening paragraph 3 under the head "Regarding Order being Bad in law and without valid jurisdictions", elaborate submissions were made and the same has not been adjudicated as stated in ground No.1 above." 6. Learned AR, Mr. Anil Kshatriya has made a statement at bar that the legal issue raised by the assessee as a Cross Objector does not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
