KUMARPAL CHANDANMAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

(1) The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) failed to understand the facts and circumstances of the case. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– (2) The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs. 25,66,000/- under Section 68 of the Income-Tax Act. (3) The Learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in fact and in law in rejecting books of accounts under Section 145(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. (4) Your Appellant preys for appropriate relief on above grounds of appeal. (5) Your Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal stated hereinabove.

3. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.25,66,000/- owing to the cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee has furnished detailed submission before the Revenue authorities and explained clearly that the money has been received from the debtors to whom sale have been made in the past. The assessee has also attached the bifurcation amount of Rs.25,66,000/- showing from whom such money has been received along with the outstanding that was received from such parties. These details have not been disputed by the revenue authorities, and no contrary evidence has been brought on record. In view of the specific facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the explanation furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted, and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.