TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal of the Revenue. We find that the issue before us and in the decision of Tribunal for AY 2007-08 are identical and nothing contrary to the findings of the Tribunal or CIT(A) has been placed by the ld. DR to deviate from the finding of the ld. CIT(A) or the Tribunal. The remand report in the case of Ms Chamndbibi Zaidi has also been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. On perusal of the remand report, we find that the AO had made verification of all the amounts for which the additions were made by him in the assessment order, and nothing wrong has been reported by the AO in his remand report. It was alleged by the AO in the assessment order that the impugned amounts for which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tudent studying outside India, with no independent source of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee respect of amounts deposited in the joint bank account, jointly held with Chandbibi Zaidi, by incorrectly interpreting the remand report of the Assessing Officer and arriving at the wrong conclusion that there are no unexplained credits found in the said joint bank account 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search action was conducted u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the premises of Chandbibi Zaidi group of cases on 20.8.2009. During the course of search, a bank account i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had passed common order for the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 and the appeal filed by the department for the assessment year 2007-08 has been decided in favour of the assessee by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed a copy of order passed by the Tribunal assessee s own case for AY 2007-08 in ITA No.1345/Mum/2014 dated 10.6.2015. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the remand report given in the case of Ms Chandbibi Zaidi dated 28.11.2013, wherein the AO had mentioned that the request for verification has been made by him with respect to the claim of the assessee about the sources of deposits made in the bank accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the assessment order that the impugned amounts for which the addition had been made in the hands of the assessee, actually belonged to Ms. Chandbibi Zaidi. Thus, as per the AO s own assertion, these amounts did not belong to the assessee. Thus, no addition deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee, in any case. Thus, viewed from any angle and keeping in view the complete facts and circumstances of the case as well as the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08, we find that the addition was wrongly made by the AO in the hands of the assessee and the same has rightly been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Grounds raised by the Revenue for both the years are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
