9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Learned Counsel for the Assessee filed petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay, more particularly, on account of his ill-health. He further submitted that the assessee has prima facie case on merits and has got fair chances to succeed. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned delay of 72 days in filing the appeal be please be condoned in the interest of justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the Assessing Officer made the impugned addition of Rs. 16 lakhs u/sec.69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee which was deposited by him in the Bank during the demonetization period. As the assessee was fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividual, derives income from salary and filed his return of income on 15.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 8,18,996/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer has issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act calling the assessee to furnish the sources for cash deposits during the demonetization period with necessary evidences along with explanation and the bank accounts statements, Form No.16 for the F.Y. 2016-2017. In response to the said notices, the assessee has furnished his submissions. After verification of the same, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown return of income at Rs. 8,18,996/- and as per Form No.16 the income of the assessee is Rs. 9,19,58 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... family members, his savings. However, the learned CIT(A) did not fully satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and, therefore, granted part relief by sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,95,000/- out of Rs. 16 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/sec.69A of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and reiterated his submissions made before the lower authorities on the sole substantive issue of making the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee u/sec.69A of the Act as unexplained cash credit by relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be filed before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, he pleaded that the additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1962 may be admitted as it goes to root of the matter and the addition made towards cash deposit may be deleted. 9. The Learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed for admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. He submitted that it is only an afterthought and as such, the additional evidence filed by the assessee should not be admitted and pleaded that the learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has already given part relief which is just and reasonable. He accordingly submitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) be confirmed. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
