9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce when sufficient opportunity was not given by A.O. and assessee was in a position to substantiate his transactions - the order set aside and the entire issue of examination of receipts and payments/ deposits in bank and other accounts are required to be examined afresh – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA.No.306/Hyd/2011 & 956/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.A. Sai Prasad For the Respondent : Mr. P. Somasekhar Reddy ORDER Per B. Ramakotaiah, A. M. These two appeals are for the A.Y. 2007-2008 arising out of separate proceedings on the orders of the A.O. and CIT. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the source for the cash availability, the A.O. should factor in/ adjust the above addition of Rs.1,03,49,031/- (made in the course of assessment under section 143(3). The assessee is aggrieved on the order of the CIT passed under section 263. 5. Ld. Counsel placing the facts sheet on record submitted that initially A.O. examined only outstanding closing balances under the head Unsecured Loans and Advances and made an addition of Rs.1,03,49,031/- which were nothing but cheque payments received by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence and confirmed the same. In the meantime, Ld. CIT on the basis of the documents furnished at the time of assessment, arrived at the peak cash deposits of Rs.4,01,30,700/- which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the issues wrongly. First of all, A.O. should have verified various credits and debits both cash and cheque in the course of scrutiny and could have examined whether any unaccounted income was earned by way of credits or investments etc., so as to consider invoking the provisions of section 68, 69, 69A which are applicable. However, AO examined only the outstanding amounts at the end of the year and made the addition on the reason that assessee could not furnish necessary confirmations. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not accepting the additional evidence when sufficient opportunity was not given by A.O. and assessee was in a position to substantiate his transactions. By rejecting the additional evidence, we are of the opinion that, learned CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
