9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,04,949/- made by AO on account of interest paid on TDS payable on unsecured loans. 3. (a) The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts, (b) The appellant craves leaves to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned order that appeal has been filed before him against the order under section 153A r.w.s.143(3) dated 30th December, 2011, passed by ACIT, CC-3, New Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A) noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined share application money and deleted the addition. The Tribunal in its order dated 16.11.2017 dismissed the Departmental Appeal following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 570 because no incriminating material was found against the assessee during the course of search. Ld. D.R. therefore, submitted that there is a confusion on the facts. Therefore, matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter in issue afresh. 5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) followed his order for A.Y. 2005-2006 for the purpose of deleting the addition. No other findings have been given by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... simply followed his order for A.Y. 2005-2006 for the purpose of deleting the addition. Learned Counsel for the Assessee however, fairly stated that in A.Y. 2005-2006, the issue was of unexplained share application money, but, in assessment year under appeal, the issue is of unsecured loans. Ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus powers to that of the A.O. Therefore, it is his duty to verify the facts and then pass the order as per Law. The Ld. CIT(A) without giving any reasons for decision in the appellate order passed the order following his order for A.Y. 2005-2006 which may not be relevant to the matter in issue. Ld. CIT(A) have also not verified as to how two different orders have been passed by the A.O. on the same matter in issue showing differen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
