TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue. Tribunal rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. No infirmity or irregularity is found in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, we answer the substantial question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. - ITA. Nos. 100092 of 2016, 100001, 100002 And 100008 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2018 - MRS. S. SUJATHA AND JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, JJ. For The Appellant : Y.V. Raviraj, Adv. For The Respondent : Shashank S. Hegde, Adv. JUDGMENT Mrs. S. Sujatha J - These appeals are filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short the 'Act') challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji (for short the 'Tribunal') in M.A.No.13/PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals. 5. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is as under: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in deleting the addition made by the assessing authority under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money in the bank accounts by relying upon the brought forward balance of the preceding year as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which could not be challenged further before the Tribunal as the disputed tax involved for the year was less than the prescribed for filing an appeal by the Revenue? 6. Learned counsel, Sri. Y.V. Raviraj appearing for the Revenue would submit that it is trite law that a finding given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding assessment year. The argument advanced at the hands of the leaned counsel for the Revenue that owing to the circular instructions no appeal was preferred against the finding of CIT(A), would not be construed as an acceptance by the Revenue to challenge the order of CIT(A) in the subsequent years, no doubt, is a principle that could be adopted generally, but while adjudicating a case, particularly, with a specific closing cash in hand of the preceding year, it is obvious that the said amount would be the opening cash in the subsequent assessment year. If that is to be considered, adjudication on the opening cash in the subsequent assessment year would not arise. If the opening cash in hand is to be modified considering the arguments of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
