TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation from these persons are already on record. Since amounts involved are small and these persons are intimately related with the appellant, it can be safely assumed that these amounts are accrued with these persons over a period of time. In this regard, the appellant has rightly placed reliance on Sunil Dua v/s. CIT (2008 (1) TMI 634 - Delhi High Court ) In view of the above facts, loans from these should be accepted. It will be worthwhile to mention here that my predecessor in appeal - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No.1226/Ahd/2011, CO No.111/Ahd/2011 31-07-2015 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JJ. For The Revenue : Shri Narendra Singh, Sr.DR For The Assessee : Shri H.V. Gandhi, AR ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] dated 28/02/2011 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. The appeal and the cross objection are taken up together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee Shri Paresh C.Shah was filed. He submitted that the copy of bank statement as stated and the copy of ledger account of Jai Jinendra Enterprise from whom the assessee has purchased goods and those documents were also enclosed with the paper-book of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 2.2.1 As seen from his account No.0811 0010 002123 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, cheque payments were made to Jai Jinendra Ent.(assessed with the same AO), from whom he stated to have made purchases for retail business. As against total deposits (cash + cheque) made of ₹ 16.62 lakhs in the said account, withdrawals of ₹ 16.63 lakhs were made (opening balance being ₹ 1022/- and closing balance being ₹ 2.92). A.O. without controverting the submissions/evidence furnished by the appellant treated the total cash deposits as income of the appellant. He did nothing to demonstrate that the purchase of retail business had been accounted for in the purchases of whole-sale business. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the ld.CIT(A) in the order under appeal, after considering the submissions, in para-3.2 of his order had directed the AO to verify the assessee s contentions and modified the order accordingly. The relevant para-3.2 is reproduced hereunder:- 3.2. I have considered the submissions made by the A.R. of the appellant and the observations of the assessing officer in the assessment order. The contentions of the appellant are that no details were called for by the A.O. and that supporting evidences are being furnished. A.O. is directed to verify the appellant s contentions and modify the order accordingly. This ground of appeal I treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 8.1. It is submitted that the while giving appeal effect the AO had again sustained the addition which were subject matter of appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition. Against that order, the Department has not filed any appeal. So far as the action of the ld.CIT(A) in restoring the issue back to the file of AO for verifying the assessee s contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e persons should also be accepted. It will be worthwhile to mention here that my predecessor in appeal No CIT(A)-XI/712/08-09 dtd.28-02-2011 has also allowed appeal on this issue subject to verification. In view of the above, I hold that loans to the extent of ₹ 1,60,000/- should be accepted. Accordingly, the A.O.is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 1,60,000/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. 8.2. The above finding of the ld.CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue as also not pointed out that whether any appeal has been filed against this order. Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld.CIT(A), same is hereby upheld. Thus, ground No.2 of Revenue s appeal is rejected. As a result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. 9. Now, we take up the Assessee s Cross Objection No.111/Ahd/2011 for AY 2006-07 (Arising out of ITA No.1226/Ahd/2011 for AY 2006-07 - by Revenue), wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 8,00,850/- made on account of unaccounted sale. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
