TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / restricting assessee s expenditure addition - HELD THAT:- There is no rebuttal coming from the Revenue s side that the assessee had very well filed all the corresponding details and evidence on records and the Assessing Officer had disallowed the entire claim amount under various head(s). We therefore see no merit in the Revenue s second substantive grievance as well. Unexplained cash credits addition - HELD THAT:- The able assistance of both the learned representative(s)that the assessee s cash-in-hand-cum-books of account as on 01.04.2012 was ₹ 3,98,519/- followed by similar withdrawals / deposit his cash-in-hand on 31.03.2013 was at ₹ 2 ,06,974/- only remaining unexplained from the taxpayer s side. This is what appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t framed on17.03.2016 despite the fact that the same lack of genuineness / creditworthiness. It transpires at the outset qua the instant issue that the CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition for the precise reason that the amount in question had not been credited in the assessee s books in the relevant previous year from 01.04.2012 to 13.03.2013. Learned authorized representative has invited our attention to assessee s audited financial statement including balance-sheet, profit loss account, notes to account as well as bank statement in pages 1 to 11 to this effect in the paper book. The CIT(A) s discussion in page-3 has also taken note of the said material only as under:- There is merit in the submissions made by the appellant. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be based on material available with the AO and shall be reasonable estimate. It appears that the AO has not considered the audited accounts available with him while making the addition. Three are plethora of case laws referred to below which have held that the order u/s. 144 should be decided with wisdom and not based on arbitrary caprice of the AO but on settled and invariable principles of justice. 4. Learned departmental representative s argument in this factual backdrop is that such unexplained cash credits can very well be added even if they have not credited in the relevant previous year in issue. We find no merit in the instant argument in view of the hon'ble Bombay high court s at Goa very recent decision in Tax App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning unexplained from the taxpayer s side. This is what appears to have been prompted the CIT(A) could add the balance figure of ₹ 2,06,974/- only. All these facts and figures have remained undisputed from the Revenue s side. We thus see no reasons to revive the entire addition figure in question. This third and last substantive ground is also rejected therefore. 7. We lastly notice that although the Revenue has pleaded its technical ground that alleging violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 whilst admitting additional evidence in lower appellate proceedings, we however see no material on record which could indicate any such admission of additional evidence in the CIT(A) s detailed discussion. This fourth substantive grie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
