TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... genuineness of the receipt of gift by his son, Sri Bhimana Sujit Raviteja. Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. Limited scrutiny for mismatch of sales turnover - addition u/s 68 or 69A without the prior approval of the Principal CIT, Vijayawada - as per the provisions of law, the case cannot be converted to full scrutiny as per the instructions of CBDT without the approval of the Ld.CIT - HELD THAT:- Since we have adjudicated the ground on merits and allowed the appeal of the assessee, we consider it is not necessary to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A.No.76/Viz/2019 (Assessment Year:2015-16) - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from his son for purchase of car which was deposited in his bank account. His son, Sri Bhimana Sujit Raviteja had received the above sum, by way of gift from his father-in-law, Sri Adika Manohar Rao. The gift was received in connection with the marriage of his son with daughter of Sri Adika Manohar Rao. However, the AO did not accept the explanation observing that there were no sufficient withdrawals made by Sri Adika Manohar Rao in his bank account. Therefore, rejected the assessee s explanation and made the addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against which the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sales turnover and made the addition of ₹ 5,13,000/- u/s 68 or 69A of the Act without the prior approval of the Principal CIT, Vijayawada. Therefore, argued that as per the provisions of law, the case cannot be converted to full scrutiny as per the instructions of CBDT without the approval of the Ld.CIT. Hence, argued that the addition made by the AO required to be deleted on this ground also. 6. Since we have adjudicated the ground on merits and allowed the appeal of the assessee, we consider it is not necessary to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
