TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure proceedings were taken place on 29/01/2009. Return of income was filed on 14-06-2010 by admitting an income of ₹ 1,48,070/-, which is the same as that of the income declared in the original return of income. Against the said income, the AO assessed Assessee s income at ₹ 1,37,46,482/- by making an addition of ₹ 1,35,98,412/- being the opening balance of capital unexplained by Assessee, on the ground that Assessee had failed to submit the capital account for the year ending 31-03-2004 and in the absence of the details of the opening balance of the capital account, the same was treated as unexplained, resulting in the said addition. 3. On appeal, before the CIT(A) Assessee had furnished the written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... many years, obtaining the said information was not a difficult proposition for the AO. Further, he observed that as per the information filed by Assessee, the opening balance of the capital account as on 01-04-2004 was shown at ₹ 1,35,98,412/- and the said balance as on 01-04-2005 was shown at ₹ 1,38,73,360/- with earnings of the year credited to the capital account. Similarly, the balance brought forward of the capital account as on 01-04-2003 is ₹ 1,20,28,094/- which is the opening balance of the capital account for the FY 2003-04 relevant to the AY 2004-05 which was the subject matter before the AO. The CIT(A) observed that the amount of ₹ 1,35,98,412/- as adopted by the AO in his assessment order for making the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year under reference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the addition is directed to be deleted. Therefore, this ground of appeal is treated as allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous on facts. 2. The CIT(A) ought to have upheld the disallowance made with reference to assessee s claims of unexplained opening balance as the same could not be justified with supporting proofs during assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) ought not to have correlated the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act with the disallowance made on account of unexplained capital account opening balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e explanation offered is not accepted by the AO. For the year under reference, the credits made into the books of account are, on account of two items, viz., the incomes earned for the year and the sale proceeds of the jewellery, which found to be explained through the schedules of the capital account and balance sheet furnished by the appellant. The CIT(A), therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition made. In our considered view, the CIT(A) after appreciating the facts and information on record, came to the conclusion that the AO made the addition on account of opening balance of capital account on a wrong premise, hence, directed the AO to delete the same. We were also informed that assessments in Block cases were completed by same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
