TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dverting to the same. We opine in this factual backdrop that the lower appellant order is not a detailed and speaking one with reasons thereof. Coming to the Revenue’s submissions placing a strong reliance upon the tribunal’s decision in the connected group case, we notice that the said assessee had failed to produce the original retraction affidavit (supra) therein which led an adverse inference. The instant appeal does not raise any such issue. We feel in these peculiar circumstances that once the CIT(A) has not taken into account all of the assessee’s argument in affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned additions, the matter deserves another innings in lower appellant proceedings.The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a detailed s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit solemnly affirmed on 19.12.2007. It stated that the earlier statement recorded did not carry any evidentiary value. The assessee further submitted that all its land development transactions were as per market value and duly registered wherein there was no such expenditure incurred of ₹ 20 lacs. It explained that the excess cash found of ₹ 6.23 lacs was less than that of ₹ 6,44,838/- as per its relevant cash book. The Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 28.12.2007 did not agree. He observed that assessee s partner had admitted the abovestated land development expenses of ₹ 20 lacs as per the loose sheets found in the course of survey. And also that its chartered accountant in Mumbai had clarified ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment outside the books on his own land and therefore, the AO was justified in making the addition of ₹ 20.00 lakhs on this account. Similarly, the addition on account of excess cash found amounting to ₹ 6,23,000/- is also justified as the partner of the appellant, himself as accepted the same on oath. Thus, the addition of ₹ 26,23,000/- is treated as deemed income u/s 69 of the I.T. Act and the same is confirmed. 4. We have heard both the parties and gone through the case file. The assessee argues that the authorities below have made the impugned additions aggregating to ₹ 26.23 lacs in the shape of unaccounted development expenses and excess cash solely on the basis of its partner s statement without there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s factual backdrop that the lower appellant order is not a detailed and speaking one with reasons thereof. Coming to the Revenue s submissions placing a strong reliance upon the tribunal s decision in the connected group case, we notice that the said assessee had failed to produce the original retraction affidavit (supra) therein which led an adverse inference. The instant appeal does not raise any such issue. We feel in these peculiar circumstances that once the CIT(A) has not taken into account all of the assessee s argument in affirming the Assessing Officer s action making the impugned additions, the matter deserves another innings in lower appellant proceedings. We order accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a detailed speaking order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|