KARNAIL SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 64,58,000/- on account of deposits in the IDBI Bank Account and ICICI Bank Account .

Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report has accepted the deposits of Rs. 25,50,000/- and confirmed the remaining amount of Rs. 23,01,000/- which the Assessing Officer held that the deposits could not be properly explained by the assessee.

Before us , the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the deposits dated 04/05/2010 of Rs. 8,50,000/- , have been explained by filing J Form of Rs. 3,98,452/- which has not been considered by the Assessing Officer while sending the remand report. Further, he submitted that the amounts deposited on 27/05/2010 and 08/09/2010 of Rs. 5,00,000/- each were pertaining to the amounts received by the Agreement filed before the Assessing Officer from the person namely Shri. Sohan Lal which the Assessing Officer could not verify as per the remand report.

The AR pleaded that given an opportunity the entire details would be filed to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer

Ld. DR argued that no further opportunity be given to the assessee has already sufficient opportunity were given in the earlier proceedings.

On going through the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the interest of the justice would be met if an opportunity is given to the assessee to produce all the relevant documents and persons before the Assessing Officer to prove the genuineness of the transaction of Rs. 23,01,000/-. The order of the CIT(A) to the extent of grievance raised in this appeal is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer accordingly. Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File