TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding authorities have concurrently held that there is no merit in the ground raised with respect to the addition on account of the income declared by the Assessee and the receipts as per the books of account of the Assessee. CIT(A) in its order has set out the information and explanation furnished by the Assessee explaining each of the entries to substantiate its contention that the said amount is not exigible to tax. The CIT(A) has noted that the documentary evidence in support of the said explanation furnished by the Assessee was available on record. ITAT while concurring with the aforesaid finding has held that the Revenue has failed to controvert the said finding of the CIT(A). There is no substantial question of law raised in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts maintained by the Assessee. He states that the ITAT erred in concurring with the CIT(A) that the AO had failed to verify the evidence produced before him and for not providing adequate opportunity for hearing to the Assessee. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are as follows: 3.1. The Respondent, Assessee, is engaged in the business of equity trading, derivatives trading and real estate investment. On 29th September, 2011, the Assessee filed Income Tax Returns ( ITR ) declaring an income of Rs. 42,43,39,960/-, which was revised on 14th August, 2012 at the same figure. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 4.1.6. In my considered view, addition made of Rs. 10,20,64,174/- on account of amount credited in the bank account of the appellant in excess of receipt as per books of accounts is not sustainable in view of documentary evidences already available on record to substantiate the said difference. The AO has failed to make any sincere effort regarding the same and made addition only on the basis of doubt, suspicion, conjecture or surmises without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 3.4. The Appellant Revenue preferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. The CIT(A) in its order at paragraph 4.13 has set out the information and explanation furnished by the Assessee explaining each of the entries amounting to Rs. 10,20,64,174/- to substantiate its contention that the said amount is not exigible to tax. The CIT(A) has noted that the documentary evidence in support of the said explanation furnished by the Assessee was available on record. The ITAT while concurring with the aforesaid finding has held that the Revenue has failed to controvert the said finding of the CIT(A). 5. We are of the considered view that in view of the concurrent findings of fact, there is no substantial question of law raised in the present appeal. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal Anr. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
