TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be invoked. In the instant case, the assessee has recorded the cash in its books of account, explained the details of deposits, provided the credentials of the depositors to the AO. AO merely because of two depositors namely Mr. B. Kanakaraju and Mr. G. Santosh Kumar denied to have opened any account with the assessee, it cannot be a ground to be declared the deposits as bogus. AO has not provided any opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine these two persons by the assessee. AO erred in observing that the deposits received from C. Venkata Rao and Smt. Chaganti Lakshmi are by way of cheques but has wrongly noted that the deposits have been received by cash by the assessee. AO is also not correct in declaring ₹ 500/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER S. BALAKRISHNAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections is filed by the assessee. The Revenue s appeal is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam in appeal No.10491/2019-20/CIT(A)-1/VSP/2020-21, dated 18/09/2020 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO has incorrectly invoked section 69A of the Act without verifying the genuineness of the transaction made during the months of October, 2016 to November, 2016. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash deposits during the period are unexplained and from undisclosed sources and by invoking the provisions of section 69A, the Ld. AO made an addition of ₹ 3,22,80,000/- to the income returned by the assessee. The Ld. AO also proposed to tax the income U/s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assssee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A), considering the written submissions covering the grounds raised by the assessee originally and also additional grounds raised, directed that the addition made by the Ld. AO be deleted and partly allowed the assessee s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. Ld DR argued that the cash deposits of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee also maintains four bank accounts as detailed in para 2.1 of the Ld. CIT(A) s order. We find from the order of the Ld. AO that he has not disputed the books of accounts of the assessee. We also find from the paper book submitted by the assessee that the requirements like membership of the depositor, date of deposit, amount received, depositor PAN, AADHAR and other particulars are provided by the assessee before the Ld. AO which was not disputed by the Ld. AO. We also find no merit in the orders of the Ld.AO that section 69A can be invoked. For the sake of convenience, section 69A is reproduced herein below: Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 stating that these depositors are not aliens to the assessee , inspite of the fact that the assessee has requested the AO for cross-examination of these members. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that the adjudicating authority is bound to provide an opportunity for examination of the witnesses and in the absence of the same except that the assessee demanded for a cross examination the witnesses cannot be used against the assessee. The Ld. AO also erred in observing that the deposits received from C. Venkata Rao and Smt. Chaganti Lakshmi are by way of cheques but has wrongly noted that the deposits have been received by cash by the assessee. This fact was also recorded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
