DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -19(3), MUMBAI vs. RANJEET KUMAR MOHANLAL JAIN, MUMBAI

The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:-

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law is the Ld. CIT(A) right on 14.08.2023 when the assessee was non-cooperative, before the Assessing Officer and the order had been passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the documents filed de

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without appreciating the facts that in such Bank accounts as when compared to the previous Financial year 2015-16 in this year ie. F.Y. 2016-17 in a particular month there is abnormal cash deposits which are not explained by the assessee and without any rectification in remand by the Assessing Officer.

On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards cash deposits at Rs.1,03,26,554/- as in the statement of the F.Y. 2016-17, same pattern is observed till October, 2016 that there no cash sales booked by the assessee till October, 2016, but on 8th of November, 2016, assesee suddenly made sale of Rs. 1,03,26,554/-, which required verification beyond doubt by the Assessing Officer.

On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the addition made towards unexplained loans/credits to the extent of Rs.61,00,000/- as the same were not explained by the assessee that credit worthiness and genuineness of

On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards interest of Rs. Ra. 11,37,147/ claimed as expenditure on unexplained loans / credits to the extent of Rs.61,00,000/- as the same were not explained by the assessee that credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions made. Hence, the deletion of interest is not acceptable and without any verification in remand by the Assessing Officer.

On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting all the additions made by the AO without appreciating the fact that nothing is explained to the satisfactions of the AO as it specifically mentioned in the section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the order of the Learned CIT(A) suffers from perversity as it ignores the facts brought on record establishing that no proofs are filed and explained by the assessee and without any verification in remand by the Assessing Officer.

On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,03,26,554/- as unexplained deposits/investment u/s 68 overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to

On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80 and CII v. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR-540 (S.C.) and coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee, without awaiting the Remand Report by the Assessing Officer, when the assessee has not discharged its onus, during the assessment proceedings.”

Brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2017, at a total income of ₹43,43,730/- , which was selected for scrutiny for verifying abnormal increase in cash deposit during demonetization period. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13th August, 2018. During the course of assessment, the learned Assessing Officer was informed by Mr. Shirish Ranjeet kumar Jain that assessee Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain has passed away on 27th November, 2019, and thereafter the legal heir of deceased was brought on record by the name of Mr. Shirish Ranjeet kumar Jain. The assessment proceedings were continued on legal heir. The learned Assessing Officer found on 8th November, 2016, assessee has made sales of ₹103,26,554/-, whereas in earlier years and during the same financial year prior to that date there was no cash deposited. The learned Assessing Officer after examination of cash bill found that all the cash

The learned Departmental Representative was questioned on that how the appeal can be filed in the name of a dead person. But it was stated as the return of income was filed in the name of same person and the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the deceased is to be used for filing appeal , name of respondent is deceased person. It was stated that at the most same can be a irregularity.

Therefore, this appeal of the learned Assessing Officer deserves to be dismissed however we give liberty that if the learned Assessing Officer still wishes to file an appeal he must file the appeal in revised form no.36 along with the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.