INCOME TAX OFFICER-28(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VINODRAO WAMANRAO MORE, NAVI MUMBAI

Date of Hearing – 04/12/2024 Date of Order – 06/12/2024

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 22/04/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17.

“(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.29,51,564/- made u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that in the assessment order the assessing officer has clearly brought the fact that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.29,51,564/- during the F.Y. 2015-16 and the assessee had failed to disclose the source of cash deposits. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.29,51,564/- made u/s. 68 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not justify the reasons as to why the other persons had deposited some cash in his bank account. (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23,85,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not filed loan confirmations establishing the creditworthiness of the loan givers and genuineness of the transactions whereas during the year under consideration the assessee has only salary income. (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.94,00,000/- holding that the same is included in the amount of Rs.99,16,700/- added u/s. 68 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to explain the source of investment in flat at Dhokali, Thane at Rs.94,00,000/- and corroborate the same with the amount of Rs.99,16,700/-. (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.94,00,000/- holding that the same is included in the amount of Rs.99,16,700/- added us. 68 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the grounds nos. 6 & 7 (i.e. grounds relating to the addition of 1,42,21,700/- which includes the amount of addition of Rs.99,16,700/-) of the extant appeal has himself found that the appellant is unable to submit any satisfactory written documents in support of its claim in course of assessment proceedings and in course of appeal proceedings.”