INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(4), , RAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR PANTHI, RAIPUR
In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed
ITA 236/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Ito-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.09/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Rpr/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Raipur, Dated 17.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,35,21,935/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Without Appreciating The Facts On Record?” 2. “Whether Cit(A) Committed An Error In Law In Not Appreciating The Purport Of Provisions Of Sections 68 Of The Income-Tax Act
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)Section 68
4
& CO No.09/RPR/2017
without mentioning any section of the Act under which such addition was made. It was the allegation by the Ld AR that the order of Ld AO was cryptic and sketchy finished in 5 lines on the issue so far as have not mentioned the name of loan creditors for Rs. 2,35,21,935/-, whose