9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply by accepting the submission of the assessee - remand the matter back to issue speaking order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I.T. Act, but by mistake it was mentioned in the body of the assessment order that order is passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. completed the assessment on 20.11.2002 estimating total income of Rs.1,00,17,754/-. The addition was made on account of unexplained deposit made in Central Bank of India amounting to Rs.92,92,754/- and estimated business income of Rs.3,25,000/- and investment in car for Rs.4 lakhs. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. to the extent of Rs.92,92,754/- and deleted the estimated business income of Rs.3,25,000/- and investment in car for Rs.4 lakhs. The addition confirmed by ld. CIT(A) was on account of deposits o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere assessee has neither filed any return of income nor complied any notice/letter. Assessee could not give any explanation or evidence in respect of either cheques deposited or issued from her account. However in this case during the year assessee has deposited cash amount on various dates from 3.2.94 to 15.2.94 aggregating Rs.8,25,000/-. However the assessee has withdrawn from his bank account Rs.60,53,000/- on various dates before 3.2.94. Thus the benefit of peak credit for cash deposit is allow to the assessee and no addition made as large cash was withdrawn prior to deposit cash as stated above. But deposits made by cheques in her bank account is considered as unexplained cash credit and total amount Rs.71,99,500/- (Rs.80,24,500/- - Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing ld. D.R. vehemently argued that ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by passing non-speaking order simply accepting the submission of the assessee despite the fact that assessee did not furnish any details of persons from whom cheques were deposited in the bank account or to whom cheques were issued by the assessee. In the absence of such information peak credit benefit cannot be calculated and allowed. For making this submission ld. D.R. relied on the two decisions of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of C.I.T. v. R.S. Rathore (Raj) reported in 212 ITR 390 and in the case of Swaroop Chand Kojuram v. C.I.T.(Raj) reported in 235 ITR 732. Concluding his argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
