9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) - 12, Kolkata dated 05.07.2019 and the solitary issue involved therein relates to the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the amounts found to be deposited in the bank account of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading as a retaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO u/s 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was reiterated by the assessee that the advances in question amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- were received by him from the concerned two parties in cash against sale of property. From the perusal of the relevant agreements for sale, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of her property and the amounts so received were deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee and his wife. She has submitted that the said advances were wrongly shown in the balance sheet of the assessee and since the same were received by the wife of the assessee and not the assessee, the concerned parties in reply to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) stated that the advances in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not by him from the relevant record. 5. Before parting, it is noted that the order is being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing. However, taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. For coming to such a conclusion, I rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
