Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal, A.R. Respondent by Shri Ashish Porwal, D.R. Date of Hearing: 06.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 26.10.2018 pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
[ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul] On the facts and the circumstances of the case:-
The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the assessment order, which is bad in law, void-ab-initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. (Tax effect:10,10,100) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.33,67,000/- made u/s 69A (Tax effect: 10,10,100) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.
2. The only effective ground in this appeal is against confirming the addition of Rs.33,67,000/- made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 14.3.2016. The A.O. while framing the assessment made addition of Rs.33,67,000/- u/s 69 of the Act in respect of the amount deposited in the Axis Bank savings account on the ground that this savings bank account was not disclosed in the books of accounts. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions confirmed the addition. Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal.
[ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul]
Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. The submissions of the assessee are as under:
[ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul] [ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul] [ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul]
Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee could not explain the source of these
[ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul] deposits. In rejoinder, Ld. A.R. submitted that there are deposits and withdrawals in the savings bank account, even it is assumed that the initial deposits were not explained but subsequently, the same amount was withdrawn and deposited in the bank account, therefore, the withdrawals were available in the hand of the assessee.
Hence, he requested that peak credit may be taken.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that in the bank statement there are deposits and withdrawals. In the submissions as made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has distinguished the case laws as cited by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. We therefore, considering the totality of the facts and material placed before us, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to verify the working of the peak credit as 7
[ Abdul Aziz Khan, Betul] submitted by the assessee and restrict the addition to the extent of such peak credit. The ground raised is partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 22 .01.2020.