INDUKURI VARA PRASAD RAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

Learned counsel submits at the outset that assessee no more wishes to press it's former substantive grievance seek to reverse 8% estimated addition of Rs. 2,71,601/- in transportation business keeping in mind smallness thereof. This ground is rejected accordingly.

Next comes sec. 68 sundry creditors amount addition of Rs.1,19,01,037/- made as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act made in both lower proceedings, suffice to say, we deem it proper that the assessee has filed his additional evidence/ submissions before the CIT(A). He forwarded the same to the Assessing officer for a remand report dated 5.4.2019 (para 7.4, pages 7 & 8) that the above sundry creditors appear to be genuine. The same seals the outcome as per CIT vs. DM Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar.) (HC) and Smt. B Jaya Lakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Madras) that the Revenue cannot be held as an aggrieved party in case the Assessing Officer’s favourable remand report before the CIT(A). We adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis and delete the impugned addition for this precise reason alone. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Pronounced in Open Court on 11th June, 2021.