ITO WARD-1, LATUR vs. SHRI MANGESH SIDRAMPPA MALANG, LATUR

This Revenue’s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-I, Aurangabad’s order dated 04.09.2019 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A)-1/238/2016-17 dt.29.04.2016, involving proceedings under 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act.

Now comes the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance on merits that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in restricting the Assessing Officer’s action making section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.4,38,00,000/- in his assessment order dated 28-03-2016, to the extent of Rs.65.00 lakhs only in the lower appellate discussion.

Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the impugned unexplained cash credits addition since the assessee could not prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the alleged 33 sundry creditors during the course of assessment. We note in this factual background that the CIT(A) appears to have taken note of the assessee’s additional evidences/submissions filed during the course of lower appellate proceedings which stood partly accepted in the Assessing Officer’s remand report as well dated 02-08-2019 acknowledging therein that out of the foregoing 33 alleged sundry creditors, only 3 of them, i.e., Nagesh Vijaykumar Sontakke, Rama Reddy and Sagar Akash Patil involving Rs.5.00 lakhs, Rs.12.00 lakhs and Rs.8.00 lakhs; respectively, remained unexplained. The CIT(A) still went on to consider the household withdrawals, agricultural income(s) and other expenses of all the said parties to restrict the impugned section 68 addition from Rs.4,38,00,000/- to Rs.65.00 lakhs only. Faced with this situation, we quote Smt. B.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.