9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.66,13,271/- made on account of net profit rate @ 5% of total sales. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.2,28,82,072/- made on account of suppressed sale. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.15,00,000/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.6,42,500/- made on account of unexplained investment in FDRs u/s. 69. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO also computed agricultural income and balance was added as income from other sources in a sum of Rs.5,02,000/-. The AO made further addition of Rs.1,00,000/- being cash credit in the name of M/s Radhey Biscuits because the assessee could not produce copy of bank account. The AO did not give benefit of interest payment claimed u/s. 24(b) in a sum of Rs.1,17,695/- because no evidence was produced before the AO for payment of interest. The ld. CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2005-06 in the case of the same assessee directed to apply net profit rate of 1.3%. Separate addition of Rs.5,02,000/- was telescoped out of the net profit addition and it was directed that no separate addition is called for. The add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 05.09.2011 in which ground No. 1 to 5 have not been authorized by the ld. Commissioner for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, these grounds have not been authorized by the ld. Commissioner for the purpose of filing the appeals before the Tribunal and further these are not arising out of the impugned order of ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue on ground No. 1 to 5 is, therefore, infructuous and also not maintainable. 3.1 On ground No. 6, the ld. CIT(A) has given telescoping benefit out of the part addition maintained on account of net profit addition and no separate addition was made. The ld. CIT while giving authorization has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) in giving telescoping benefit to the assessee. The ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing interest u/s. 24(b) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) found that interest was paid through bank because the said amount was debited in the bank account. Therefore, set off of the same was given to the assessee being the interest paid on the house loan. No contrary material has been produced before us to contradict the findings of the ld. CIT(A). This ground is more or less same as was approved by the ld. CIT for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3.4 In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the ground No. 1 to 5 of the departmental appeal do not arise out of the impugned order and have also not been approved and authorized by the ld. CIT for the purpose of filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 6 & 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
