9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. 3. The issue raised in the Assessee's Cross Objection is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in making an ad-hoc addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on estimate basis and in arbitrary manner and without there being any material justifying the addition to be made. 4. In this case the assessee filed return of income on 16.7.2008 declaring a net taxable income of Rs. 2,49,120/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer in this regard noted that numerous opportunities were given to the assessee, but the assessee did not properly respond or complied with the Assessing Officer's notices. Assessing Officer noted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has been on regular medication since then. Due to the persistent medical problem of her husband, assessee could not file its return of income correctly and failed to disclose the income from food grain business under bonafide mistake. Documentary evidence regarding illness of the husband of the assessee are separately enclosed justifying that the mistake was bonafide. Copy of some of the cash memo's are also enclosed separately showing the sale proceeds from the food grain business. The above submissions clearly establish that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not called for on facts and circumstances of the case and hence deserves to be deleted." 6. Submissions of the assessee were forwarded to the Assessing Officer by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax (A) proceeded to hold that arguments of the assessee are accepted and the Assessing Officer is directed to charge tax as per the provisions of section 44AF of the Act, which worked out to Rs. 1,81,100/-. 8. However, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that though assessee was a salaried person for the part of the year, she had not maintained full sets of books of accounts like cash book, ledger, bills and vouchers for all expenses. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that in the overall circumstances, he was making the addition of Rs. 3 lacs to cover the omission and commission of concealment of income in addition to the estimated income addition of Rs. 1,81,100/- u/s. 44AF of the I.T. Act. 9. Against the above order the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has given an observation that assessee has filed the necessary details and the Assessing Officer has not examine the same. We find that in this case there is totally contradictory finding by the Assessing Officer in the Assessing Officer's remand report and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in his appellate order. It is also noted that assessee has not submitted the details of her business to the Assessing Officer in the return of income. Under the circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer is directed to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
