9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the ld. ITO. As such the consequential order is not sustainable in law. 2. That the ld. CIT(A), was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,10,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 27,36,810/- as made by the ld. ITO, by drawing following incorrect inferences in a most mechanical manner and without proper application of mind to facts and evidence brought on record: i) That the assessee could not explain the receipt of Rs. 10,20,000/- from Sh. Sarwan Singh as lease rent of his 17 acre agriculture land, as wrongly reported by the ITO in remand report. ii) That withdrawal of Rs. 9,90,000/- made from bank account could not be explained before the AO, when this item was not the subject matter of addition. iii) That the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. It is seen that the present appeal is barred by limitation further the Tribunal vide its order dated 21st December, 2021 had condoned the delay of 339 days, thereafter the hearing was adjourned. Ground No. 1 of assessee's appeal is against the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) grossly erred in reopening the assessment. He contended that the assessment was reopened on the basis of having some information regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 27,36,810/- in the bank a/c of the assessee held with Punjab National Bank, Kapurthala. He submitted that merely having an information of cash deposits would not be suff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on letters were issued to the assessee on 24.02.2012, 19.12.2014, 07.08.2015 and 09.09.2015 seeking explanation regarding the source of the cash deposit, however despite the letters were duly served on the assessee no explanation was given to him. Ld. counsel for the assessee could not point out that before the Assessing Authority, the assessee had offered explanation regarding cash deposits. This being the undisputed fact, I do not see any reason to interfere into the decision of the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment. Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 27,36,810/-. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the remand report before the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation of the source of the cash deposit to the extent of the gift received from his father of Rs. 5,00,000/- and 1/3rd share of Rs. 6,44,300/- found to be explained. Thus, out of addition of Rs. 27,34,000/-, this amount of Rs. 11,44,300/- ought to have been reduced. I hold accordingly. Now coming to the rest of the addition the source of deposit was stated to be the lease amount received from one Sh. Shravan Singh. The evidences regarding receipt of lease amount was not believed by the authorities below on the basis that the lease deed as furnished did not disclose the name and address of the witnesses. In my considered view this approach of the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
