TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive addition u/s 68 of the Act is not justified under these circumstances. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on protective basis and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A.No.920/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JJ. For The Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr.DR For The Respondent by : Shri M.M. Bhasin, Adv. ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 26.11.2012 in Appeal No. 214/2009-10 for AY 2007-08. 2. The revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to safeguard the interest of the revenue, protective addition in the hands of assessee was made amounting to ₹ 17,94,540 u/s 68 of the Act competing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), which was allowed by passing impugned order and the CIT(A) held that the amount received from the clients for further deposits into their respective accounts does not form part of turnover of the assessee or her husband, as they only get commission income proportionate to the business collected by them and the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO on protective basis. Now, the aggrieved revenue is before this Tribunal with the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. Ground no.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. The DR further contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in not appreciating the fact that without the confirmation from so called clients, the contention of the assessee cannot be considered and accepted. The DR submitted that the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 8. Ld. Counsel of the assessee replied that the AO ignored the very factual matrix that the total amount received from the clients in cash was ₹ 16,22,140 and the same was further deposited into the respective accounts of the clients which does not form part of the turnover of the assessee and her husband as they only got commission proportionate to the business which they have given to their financial agency. Ld. AR vehemently con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proportionate to the business they have given to the above agency. Therefore, this observation of the Assessing Officer is of no merit in view of all these facts the addition of ₹ 19,47,667/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 in the hands of the appellant on protective basis is deleted. 10. In view of above, we are inclined to hold that the AO ignored this very fact that the amount of ₹ 16,22,140 received by the assessee from her clients was further deposited into respective saving accounts of her clients and this amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee, hence protective addition u/s 68 of the Act is not sustainable. From above conclusion and observation of CIT(A), we clearly observe t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
