SHERGIL HARJIT,AHMEDNAGAR vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, PUNE
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 170/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”
For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69
263, the Pr.CIT observed that though the turnover of the assessee’s business was Rs.7,88,900/- during the F.Y. 2014-15, the assessee had deposited Rs.15,68,000/- as cash in the bank. Therefore, cash deposits made to the extent of Rs.7,79,100/- were not made from the disclosed sources. The Assessing Officer had, however, made addition
