ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI vs. SURAYAKANT RATANPAL, NAVI MUMBAI

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against impugned order dated 06/02/2013 passed by the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai in respect of the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2008-09, on the following grounds:-

1) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in taking the cash deposit as suppressed sales/ undisclosed turnover of the assessee and allowed relief to the assessee of Rs. 13,30,227/- out of cash deposit of Rs. 14,63,450/- though the source of cash deposit was not explained during assessment proceedings nor during appellate proceedings. The same cannot be said to be suppressed sales/ undisclosed turnover and hence the CIT(A)’s decision is not acceptable."

2) The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th January, 2016