TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een given an opportunity of being heard at the appellate stage in such circumstances, before passing the appellate order. Therefore, the order passed without giving opportunity to A.O. to rebut the claim of assessee, the order cannot be sustained in law As assessee did not raise any such plea of peak credit before A.O. and no factual foundation have been laid out for claiming benefit of peak credit either before A.O. or before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee admitted before Ld. CIT(A) that cash flow statement is cooked-up document. In view of the above, we find that the matter requires re-consideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was also served by affixture. However, none appeared before A.O. The A.O. in the absence of any evidence and material on record and in the absence of any co-operation from the side of the assessee, made the addition of ₹ 66,78,128 on account of undisclosed/unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of the I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, applying the concept of peak credit, deleted the addition of ₹ 59,98,974. The findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in paras 6 and 7 of the order are reproduced as under : 6. Ground No. 3 is against the addition of ₹ 66,78,128/- u/s 68 of the I T Act being the cash deposited in appellant s saving banks accounts. As per the appellant s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d up document and therefore can be considered only as an afterthought. The fact that even that shows negative cash balance indicates that the appellant is unable to properly explain the cash deposited in his saving banks accounts. 7. The appellant s AR in the written submissions filed on 29.11.2013 had also stated that in ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar Branch a new saving banks account was opened by the appellant on 20.01.2009 and the earlier saving banks account of the appellant was in-operative from 06.01.2009. Therefore, it was requested that the two accounts should be considered as one for considering the peak credit of the appellant. According to the appellant s AR, the peak credit was ₹ 6,79,154/- on 29.06.2009 as he had balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment was sought. No explanation was filed with any documentary evidence to explain the cash deposited by assessee in his bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., The A.O. therefore, passed ex-parte order under section 144 of the I.T. Act. It is, therefore, the duty of the Ld. CIT(A) before granting relief to the assessee that whatever contention was raised by the assessee before him should be confronted to the A.O. The A.O. should have been given an opportunity of being heard at the appellate stage in such circumstances, before passing the appellate order. Therefore, the order passed without giving opportunity to A.O. to rebut the claim of assessee, the order cannot be sustained in law. Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
