TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had examined large investment in property as compared to the total income and which was matter of dispute before the CIT(A) in the first round of litigation, wherein the Tribunal had directed to admit the additional evidence of the assessee and to decide the issue and that the ld.CIT(A) finding a new source of addition by making allegation that when an amount was returned to loan creditor there was cash deposit HED THAT:- CIT(A) being satisfied with the additional evidences filed establishing the genuine sources of investment in the hands of the assessee for purchase of property, travelled beyond the mandate of the Tribunal in the first round of litigation - CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after admitting the additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce on the date the sum was credited in the Books of Accounts. So for all reasons discussed above the assessee was supposed to be put to notice which CIT(A) failed. Assessee appeal allowed. - Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms Smriti Sahay, Advocate And Ms Aishwarya Singh, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The cross appeals in ITA Nos.4945/Del/2019 and 4495/Del/2019 are preferred by the Assessee as well as the Revenue against the order dated 19.03.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty. Accordingly, both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR, bringing forth the facts of the case, submitted that while purchasing this property from Kotak Mahindra Bank, as the assessee was not having requisite funds, a loan was taken of Rs. 6,19,00,000/- from Development Credit Bank, but, its disbursement was taking time, so, an unsecured loan was taken from M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd., and, subsequently, when the loan amount was disbursed in the Axis Bank account, the same was used to repay the unsecured loan from M/s LMJ Logistics Ltd. 3.1 The ld. AR has submitted that the initial addition was made under scrutiny assessment for the reason that the AO had examined large investment in propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfronted with a situation about the source of investment in the property and in either way the CIT(A) was examining if the investment in the property was from a genuine source or it was the own money of the assessee. 5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and to the above submissions, we are of the considered view that there is no dispute on the settled proposition of law that CIT(A) can make an enhancement only after show causing the assessee and at the same time question of taxability from new source cannot be determined by CIT(A) as first appellate authority and reliance for same is placed on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgement in CIT vs Sardari Lal Co(supra). In the case in hand, the assessment order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Consequent to the filing of evidences, if the CIT(A) intended to examine the issue further, then, at one hand same was beyond mandate of Tribunal order restoring issue to CIT(A) and otherwise that certainly required putting the assessee to notice. However, the ld.CIT(A) failed to put the assessee on notice and questioned the source of cash deposits in the Axis Bank account and considered the same as unexplained cash credits in the books of account for the year under consideration. Thus, addition made by Ld. CIT(A) on a new source, in the form of source of sum credited in book of account is not sustainable. 7. There is no force in the contention of Ld. DR that in any case the tax authorities were examining the source of invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
