TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- has escaped in the total sum computed by the Assessing Officer, the addition was made by Tribunal. We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not take any effort to make the total of these four figures of these four bank accounts and only adjudicate the sum of total determined by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 20,57,654/-. The real fact is that sum of these four figures comes to ₹ 22,57,654/- whereas Assessing Officer has taken wrongly at ₹ 20,57,654/-, hence the said issue was therefore before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we note that Tribunal is right in adjudicating the issue of the peak amount of ₹ 2,02,067/-, hence we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. This mistake was committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Similarly, In ITA(SS) No. 159/Ahd/2011 the brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee Smt. Geetaben N. Kapadia has received investment in her accounts with Centurion Bank Ltd., Surat as under: A/c No. Financial Year Peak Balance 0041-097733-020 2005-06 10,01,000 0041-093100-001 2005-06 2,02,067 0041 -097708-051 2005-06 5,53,587 0041-097680-020 2005-06 5,01,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 041-093100-001 2005-06 2,02,067 Therefore, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of the addition of ₹ 2,02,067/-. Thus, the appeal in the case of Shri Amit N. Kapadia is allowed and the appeal in the case of Smt. Geetaben N. Kapadia is partly allowed. 4. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that against the original peak balance of ₹ 2,02,067/- of bank account of Serial No.2 of the above table given in para no.2 of this order, only the same was considered by the Assessing Officer while making the addition in the assessment order, however the same has never been contested before the Tribunal, therefore addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is evident that sums of ₹ 20,57,654/- for F.Y. 05-06, A.Y. 2006-07, have been held in unaccounted manner which are not recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. These peak credit investments are amounts which are not recorded in the books of account. 7. On appeal, before the ld. CIT(A), we note that the said peak balance of the said bank account number has not been discussed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. On further appeal, the Tribunal has adjudicated the fact which is being generated from the assessment order. Since the object is to adjudicate the investment made in the impugned bank accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal as a fact finding authority noted that there was a mistake committed by the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peak amount of ₹ 2,02,067/-, hence we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. 8. Before parting, we made it clear that this mistake was committed by the Assessing Officer while doing totaling of these figures at ₹ 20,57,654/- and the (correct total comes at ₹ 22,57,654/-) said mistake was carried forward up to CIT(A) and then before this Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of ld. Counsel that the issue of the peak amount of ₹ 2,02,067/- was not before this Tribunal, is not acceptable; hence we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application (in MA No. 116/AHD/2017 for AY.2006-07) filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
