Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & G.D. PADMAHSHALI
PER S.S. GODARA, JM :
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.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. The Revenue has placed on record the ITO,Ward-1, Nanded’s letter dated 16-11-2022 along with the assessee’s alleged receipt of today’s notice in person. The assessee-respondent is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
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.
Jayalakshmi Vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Madras) & CIT Vs. D.M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Karnataka) that Revenue could hardly be termed as an aggrieved party once its Assessing Officer submits favourable remand report. We adopt the very reasoning herein as well to reject the Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Ordered accordingly.
This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06th December, 2022.