9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The question whether a ground is baseless or not has to be decided by the assessee when appeal is instituted and then it comes within the domain of the appellate authority to decide it on merits. Such types of observations are not expected from an Officer of the rank of CIT(A). I, therefore, expunge these observations from the impugned order. 3. Second ground is against the reduction in trading addition from Rs. 24,952 to Rs. 15,000. The facts of the case are that a survey action was taken under s. 133A on 22nd Nov., 1999 wherein it was found that cash was short by Rs. 1852 and stock was in excess by Rs. 51,816. From the computation of income, copy placed at p. 19 of the paper book, it is found that the assessee made a surrender of Rs. 55 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicability of s. 145 of the Act. Coming to the quantum of addition it is found that the assessee had shown net profit of Rs. 15,741 to which the AO made addition of Rs. 24,952 and the learned CIT(A) allowed relief to the tune of Rs. 9,485 thereby sustaining the addition to the tune of Rs. 15,000. In my considered opinion there is no justification for allowing any further relief on this count. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 5. Third ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 21,490 made by the AO on account of low household withdrawals. It was noted by the AO that the assessee had shown household withdrawals at Rs. 5000 upto the date of survey. The expenditure on household was claimed from his capital account by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of Smt. Ratan Devi was not confronted to the assessee nor the assessee was allowed any opportunity to conduct cross-examination, in my considered view the reliance on such statement to the prejudice of the assessee cannot be sustained. In my considered opinion, it would be just and fair if the impugned order on the above referred two scores is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. I order accordingly and direct him to decide these two issues afresh, as per law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee would be given opportunity of cross-examining Smt. Ratan Devi. 7. Ground No. 4 is against the addition of Rs. 4,000 made under s. 69C as unexpl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 10. The only other effective ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 60,000 made by the AO under s. 68 on account of credit appearing in the name of Smt. Mishri Devi. 11. The assessee had shown credit of Rs. 60,000 in the name of Smt. Mishri Devi who was mother of the assessee (wrongly mentioned as grandmother). In support of the genuineness of this credit, the assessee furnished a copy of her return disclosing income from stitching charges, etc. which the AO found to have been furnished in July, 2001 after issuance of notice to the assessee under s. 143(2). The AO made addition, which was confirmed in the first appeal. 12. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
