TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 913X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary income narrated by AO in his order is deleted by CIT(A) because the assessee has already declared this amount under the head salary. Hence, delete the addition and allow this issue of assessee s appeal. Unexplained investment - HELD THAT:- Even from the fund position as noted by the AO there is withdrawal from father s bank account maintained at SBI, Vadavalli, an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and withdrawal of Rs.7,00,000/- on 05.03.2012, total comes to Rs.9,40,000/- whereas investment is only Rs.9,39,320/-. It means that the investment and withdrawal matches. Allow this issue in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- As assessee could not produce any evidence as was the situation before AO, as was the sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y appeal was filed before Tribunal only on 08.12.2022 thereby there is a delay of 50 days. The assessee stated the reason that he was pursuing alternative remedies of filing rectification petition and the reason reads as under:-. 2 The order of CIT(A) dtd,, 12.08.2022 was received on 20.08,2022. Rectification petition was filed before CIT(A) and the order dtd 02.09.2022 was received on 13.09.2022. 3. The above orders were handed over by the appellants father to Sri Naveen Matthew in the office of his Income Tax Auditor Srl CA V.S.Saravanan who handled our assessment proceedings. The above orders were misplaced in the auditor office and could be traced out only on 09.11.2022 and appeal fees was paid on 10.11.2022. 4, The abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - and Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of Airtech Machine and tools as on 31.03.2011. Those credit no longer appear in the account as on 31.03.2012. Smt. Sabeera had confirmed that her money of Rs.10,00,000/- was returned by the company through the account of her son-in-law. The AO simply brushed aside the documentary evidences and stated that the said sum could have been directly credited to the account of Smt Sabeera. It is seen that the AO had totally relied on the statement of G. Kumaravel without affording opportunity of cross-examination from assessee. Considering the documents filed, addition of Rs.11,00,000/- cannot be sustained. But, the ld.CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.64,000/- only on the basis that the explanation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition and allow this issue of assessee s appeal. 6. Coming to second issue against the order of CIT(A) upholding the addition made by AO of Rs.2,43,170/-. 7. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee has tried to explain the purchase of the following properties:- i. Vacant site on 16.12.2011 for an amount of Rs.1,73,720/- ii. Purchase of vacant site on 23.08.2011 for Rs.2,74,000/- iii. Purchase of vacant plot in July, 2011 for an amount of Rs.69,450/- iv. Purchase of vacant plot on 05.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,41,850/- v. Purchase of another land on 30.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.2,80,300/- The assessee has made investment to the tune of Rs.9,39,320/- during the year in purchase of various assets out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term of the above, I allow this issue in favour of assessee and I direct the AO to delete the addition. 9. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) upholding the addition made by AO of Rs.7,35,000/-. 10. Brief facts are that the AO made addition of Rs.7,35,000/- by observing in para 7.3 as under:- 7.3 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act:- Assessee s AR had produced cash book for F.Y. 2011-12 and the same perused carefully and found that assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 17-12-2011, Rs.2,35,000/- on 03-01-2012 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 07-01-2012 in his City Union Bank account and no immediate similar withdrawal was made from his account. In view of the above, a sum of Rs.7, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to Rs.15,49,000/- which was unexplained. Hence, he made addition. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition at Rs.59,000/- claimed to have been received by assessee from Mrs. Shakila Muralibalan. The assessee filed confirmation from the depositor and lady, who claimed to have been the cousin of the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that she was a school teacher earning Rs.23,000/- per month and hence, he has not accepted the cash deposit of Rs.59,000/- received from her. Even now before me assessee could not file any evidence or explanation to explain this credit entry of Rs.59,000/-, hence I dismiss this ground. 15. As regards to charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B 234C of the Act, which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
