TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeals, therefore both were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. First, we take up the Revenue s appeal, i.e. ITA No.59/Ahd/2013 pertaining to Asst.Year 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 11,96,797/- out of total addition of ₹ 13,22,786/- made on account of undisclosed income. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 12/04/2013. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only grievance of the Revenue is in adopting the incremental peak by the ld.CIT(A). We find that ld.CIT(A) has allowed the alternative ground taken by the assessee that the addition towards peak credit should have been restricted to the incremental amount for the year by excluding the peak credit for the earlier year. The ld.CIT(A) in para-5.3 has decided this issue as under:- 5.3. There is no ground No.3 may be because of typographical error in the grounds of appeal submitted by appellant. In reference to ground No.4 being 4.1, the appellant contended an alternative ground (without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to auto sweep and reverse sweep and cheque issued to relative and friends . It is also verifiable that these transactions do not affect the working of peak as given by the appellant. Now for incremental peak, in the case of appellant for previous year relevant to A.Y. 2004-05 the A.O. has taken peak of ₹ 4,98,281 from this bank account and added the same in total income. I have confirmed the addition of such peak credit addition u/s.69 of the Act in the appeal order for A.Y. 2004-05. In the subsequent year i.e. previous year relevant to A.Y. 2005-06, the A.O. made addition of peak of ₹ 19,07,026. I have restricted the same to ₹ 14,26,245 in my appeal order for A.Y.2005-06 after considering the incremental pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount. In the light of the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court relied upon by the ld.counsel for the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Ashit Shah in Tax Appeal No.2436/Ahd/2009(supra) and also the decision of ITAT C Bench Ahmedabad rendered in the case of ITO vs. Shri Manubhai Narayanbhai Patel in ITA No.2161/Ahd/2012(supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, Revenue s appeal for AY 2006-07 is dismissed. 6. Now, we take up the Revenue s appeal, i.e. ITA No.106/Ahd/2013 for AY 2009-10. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) The Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has err ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
