9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice Station in their books, and assessee’s name shall never appear in their books of accounts and therefore, AO is wrong, impractical and misplaced - CIT(A) had passed a well reasoned and speaking order to delete the addition of ₹ 21,37,000/- out of ₹ 21,82,500/- as it is glorifiable with the documentary evidence – there is no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 138 /Del/2012 & I.T.A. No. 3846/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2014 - Shri U. B. S. BEDI And Shri B. C. MEENA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Subodh Gupta Shri Mukesh Agarwal, CA For The Respondent : Shri Smeer Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER PER U B S BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These two appeals of the revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.2010, fixing for 18.03.2010, was also served along with copy of AIR information mentioning the particulars of the cash deposit on 31.03.2008 of ₹ 21,82,500/- with ICICI Bank, Bandra, Mumbai, being a single deposit on that date. On the designated date, assessee again appeared in person to enquire about the nature of information as per AIR as he had denied to have deposited any such sum nor was having any such account in Mumbai. He was verbally told that more information shall be collated and communicated to the assessee. Subsequently, no communication or notice was ever received. The alleged notice dated 22.11.2010 was never served, which resulted in the ex-parte assessment. The show cause notice dated 16.12.2010 and also the ex-par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, if was so required. Ld. CIT(A) concluded to decide the issue of service of notice against the assessee as per para 10 of his order which reads as under: On perusal of complete facts ,assessment order and appellant s submissions, A.O. s contention that all notices were sent by speed post at the correct address is justified and undisputed so long as some of the earlier notices and also show cause notice dated 16.12.2010 have been admitted to have been duly served upon the appellant. Therefore, appellant s ground Nos. 1 to 3 are not maintainable and decided against him. 6. Ld. CIT(A) further held that however, on the date of probable service of show cause notice dated 16.12.2010, expected to be served on 18.12.2010, as well as on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that the A.O. on not finding any compliance of notices, proceeded with the assessment by making the addition of the whole of the sum of ₹ 21,82,500/- and stated to be in conformity with the information received from CASS. A letter of confirmation form Anoop Service Station showing date wise cheque number and amount form assessee, along with their PAN, copy of ITR, computation of income, their balance sheet and profit loss account etc. In their confirmation they have confirmed to have received an aggregate sum of ₹ 21,37,000/- and thus have confirmed to have been the beneficial owner of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. In the remand report, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also filed by the assessee at the time of appeal proceedings which were issued by some parties to confirm the fact that the assessee was employee of Anup Service Station and used to collect the cash on their behalf. It was also submitted that similar issue has also arose in assessment year 2009-10 in which case all payments against cash deposits have been made in favour of Bharat Petroleum. This is corroborated with statement of accounts of Anup Service Station in their books. 10. Taking into account all the facts circumstances and material on record and the arguments as advanced by Ld. counsel for the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) had passed a well reasoned and speaking order which is reproduced in earlier paragraphs to delete the addition of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or its restoration. 13. After having heard both the sides and considering the material on record. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the case decided for the assessment year 2008-09 and at the most, the issue is identical where part addition was sustained and major addition was deleted when all the material was produced which was considered to delete the impugned part of addition made by the A.O. against which no contrary material have been furnished, therefore, while following the decision taken by us in earlier appeal, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 14. As a result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 15. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
