JITENDER KUMAR,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NOIDA

Coming to learned CIT(A)’s finding upholding the learned Assessing Officer’s action, making section u/s 68/69 addition to the extent of Rs. 23,50,000/-, learned counsel representing the assessee has filed his bank statement of the alleged joint account maintained with his father and his case, accordingly, is that corresponding withdrawals therein have not been given credit to this effect.

The Revenue, on the other hand, relies on the learned CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate finding in paras 5.3.1 to 5.3.2 that the assessee has already been given credit as impugned addition has been partly confirmed only.

Be that as it may, it prima facie emerges that the assessee’s joint account bank statement entries have not been discussed in the learned CIT(A)’s impugned finding. It is therefore deemed appropriate to restore the matter to this limited extent only back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, as per law, within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the assessee’s responsibility only to plead and prove the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms.